The Best Thing Around Boise

i·.1.r. Norman i.'t'einstein , Editor
Boise Vision
box 6827,
Boise , ID 83707
Lear kr. Weinstein :
J-29-81
dere is the piece on the Sagebrush Hcbellion
that Vera Hoyce asked me to write. 1 hope you can run the box
at the end; our UOPL outfit needs all the help it can get .
Ted Trueblood
719 8th Ave • . s.,
Nampa, ID 83651
ph. 467-3779
The Best 'l'hing Around Boise
By Te<i 'i'rueblood
App. 1,000 words
The population of Boise is now nearly five times
\vhat it was when I earned ~12 a week as a reporter on the ~ld
Capital ~· In those days there were still vegetable gardens
where Garden City now sprawls. Kuna was a small, quiet town,
a long way off. There were pheasants and quail on the farms
between Orchard and Curtis. In the spring 1 caught bass from
a pond back of t.hc Plantation and at. times the trout fishing
was very good in that reach of the Boise River that is now
beneath the water of Lucky Peak Reservoir. That was in 1936.
Those days are gone forever and, like others who
would rather catch a fish or shoot a pheasant than to hassle
a pinball machine, hang over a bar, or sleep through a concert,
2
I recall them with nostalgia. But one thing remains unchanged
and it, I think, is the chief reason why people move to Boise.
It is the public land , both national forest and
range land, that surrounds us. It is there, just as it tvas
45 years ago. Its recreational opportunities are as great now
as they \~ere then. And we enjoy them , thousands nf us , every
weekend. It's the best thing around Boise.
lf you draw a circle \vith a radius of 50 miles
on a r.1ap, with Boise at the center , you will oncl0oe thnusands
of acres of national f·orest and public land. If you drive out
in aluost any direction , you'll "\·lind up on it . It's yours ;
make yourself at horae. lt belongs equally to all Americans.
lt is manageu by the United States Forest 5t:::rvice and the
Bureau of' Land l''.t.anager:tent and we call it. "government land, n
but it isn't. It's our land , ours to enjoy , \vith not a
"iCeep Outtt sign for a thousand tailes .
You mir.;ht think that, after all these years . the
i"orest and range land within an hour's d.ri ve of Joise would
be \'lorn out, depleted, exhausted, nothing left . \~rong .
Fishing, hunting, picnicking , skiing, hiking , rock hounding ,
and many other leisure-time activities don't \'lear out the land.
I said the recreational opportunities are as grod
no'i as they were in 19)6. Actually, they're b<Jtter. There
were no chukars nor California valley quail here then. There
were no channel cat.fish nor smallmouth bass in the Snake
River. There are 1.10re elk in t.he Boise River drainage now then
there were in 1936 and if yc-u can't get a deer at the end of
an hour's drive from Boise tnen you are a sorry deer hunter.
Clean farming west of Boise has had a disasterous
3
effect on the pheasants and bobwhite quail that once \vere
plentiful in ~he Boise Valley, but they lived on private land.
l'm talking about public lana, our land, that we can enjoy
forever so long as we own it and it'd properly managed.
But there's the hitch; we could lose it.
'I' here is a well-financed and insidious movement
unaerway to steal it from us. This greatest of all thefts is
c a.lled t.he Sagubrush Hel>ellion. Billions are at stake. 'fhe
Sagebrush Ripoff backers nay t hey vvant only to ·t,ransfer title
frolp t he f ederal t:,nverruaent (ut>) to t-he states (also us).
Don't you believe it! 'l'he real noti ve is to L,et the gest
of our land into private ownership.
Can you believe for one moment that the backers of
the Sar:cbrush H ebel~ion are so altruistic t hey'd spend millions
of dr.llars only to transfer title frNn t.he fedural gtwernment
to the western stat.es, simply because they believe the states
would manat;e p.Jd:!: l <~ nd oetter? For us, who own it no\'v? l'he
pose is ridiculous. And the truth has occasionally leaked out.
Senator nr·rin Hatch, of Utah, wno introduced a
bill, s. loBO, in the United States Senate to transfer title
of the national forests and the public lands to t.he states
wi tnin •hose bounuariea tney lie, l'or~ot himself and said
publiclicly: t•My bill is desit>ned to return control of our
destiny to the peopl~ of Utah by transfeering title ~f the
unappropriated vublic lands to the state capitoland, from
there, to t.he c('unty authorities and, ultinately, to the
private citizens." .
'l'here are eleven public-land states--\vashingt('n,
4
Oregon, California, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Nontana,
·Wyoming, Colorado, and New Hexico. Some of the sagebrushers
say they want to ttreturn" the public lands and natif'nal forests
to the states, but the states never did own them. All <"f the
western lands came to the United States through treat.y or
purchase. Iuaho was part of the Oregon Territf'ry acquired
from Groat britain by the treaty of 1846.
For about 100 years, tne federal government followed
a policy of disposL1g of the public lands as rapidly as possible
and millions of acres were given away, primarily to che states,
the railroads, and the homesteaders. The land that's left is
what nobody \V"anted then. But the United States still ovms
about 600 million acres, most of which is managed by the Forest
Service and the bureau of Land l•'lanagement .
'Ihey are required by law to manage it for multiple
use--recreation, grazing, logging, ~ining. watershed protection-­and
though l have at times been critical of both the Forest
Service and the BU., the sagebrushers' claim that the states
would do a better job is ridiculous. No western state can
afford to care for tne land so well. In 1979, the Forest
Service spent more tnan y80 million to manage some 20 million
acres in Idaho; receipts were less than 4>30 million; r.l.'he
BU.1, with 12 million acres of land in Idaho, spent $13 million
and took in ~6 million.
'.1.'he land nobody wanted 100 years ago now looks
mighty attractive to a lot of folks. They've discovered that
it's much more valuable than anyone realized until comparatively
recently. Some of the resource users--miners, stockmen,
loggers--were upset by the Ii'ederal Land Policy and Management
5
Act of 1976 under which our land is managed for the greatest
, publiC' good . But the energy companies are the big push behind
the Sagebrush hebellion.
Senator Nalcolm ilallop , of \llyoming , made an
incautious statemen~ at the LASER (League for the Advancement
of States Equal Rights) meeting in Salt Lake City last November.
He said: "The public lands of the 1dest are a vast national
resource containing 70 percent of all western ccal, 80 pe~cent
of oil resources, 80 percent of high-grade tar sands, 80
percent of oil shale , 40 percent of natural gas supplies, and
a significant portion of uranium and geotherman (potential) ••••
in addition to a pm wealth of non-energy minerals. "
LAS£.11. coord~nates the efforts of all the Sagebrush
Rebellion groups in the various western states . Its budget
for 1981 is more than $1~ million. In opposition , here in
Idaho, we have Save Our Public Lands , Inc ., a little group
that feels rich when it has $100 in the bank .
But eventually we'll win. h'e must win . We can't
lose our public lands. They're the best thing arC'lund Bilise .
If
BOX {to follow conclusion}
Membership in Save nur Public Lands, Inc ., is
~10 fauily or individual , ~3 student, and $50 contributor.
Our address is Box 844, Boise , ID g3701 .
Volume 3 Number 2
COALITION
COMMENTS
Ed i Tor 1 s Note
Prepared by:
Nevada Legislature's Select Committee
on Pub I i c Lands
Legislative Bldg., Rm. 215
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 885-5637
June I 1981
This is the seventh issue of Coalition Comments, which was initiated in October 1979
as a primary means of communication and informationsharing on public lands issues in
the West, particularly the Sagebrush Rebel I ion. The Nevada Legislature's Select
CommiTtee on Public Lands accepted the initial responsibi I ity for Coalition Comments
and the establishment of a clearinghouse for public lands and Sagebrush Rebel I ion
information. It is hoped that at some later date CSG 1s Western Conference or a
similar regional entity wi II be able to assume these functions. Unti I that time,
Nevada wi II continue to prepare Coalition Comments on a quarterly basis and maintain
an up-to-date clearinghouse of public lands and Sagebrush Rebel I ion information.
We would ask a! I readers to please forward copies of news articles and clippings,
legislative proposals and actions, upcoming or recent meeting summaries, and other
materials relating to public lands matters in the West to the above address. Each
issue of Coalition Comments wi II high! ight some of the happenings around the West
with other news of general interest. We need to know what is happening in your area
so that we ·can alI share and benefit from the efforts of one another.
Our mos-t sincere thanks are extended to all those persons 'Nho have so conscientiously
provided infor:natior. to the clearinghouse i1 the past. Our only regret is that 01e
are unable to include a! I of this information in Coalition Comments. However, please
be aware that a I I information is retained and pI aced in our c I ear i nghouse f i I i ng
system by state and/or topic. If you should ever have any quesTions regarding the
SagelY us h Rebe I I ion or reI ated pub I i c I ands issues, just drop us a note or give us a
ca I I •
Editor
NEVADA'S PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT MOVES AHEAD
With approval of S.J.R. 17 by the legislature on May 22, 1981, Nevada's proposed
constitutional amendment on public lands has cleared the first of three tests before
it becomes effective. Approval by both houses of the Nevada Legislature in 1983 with
final approval by Nevada voters in the 1984 general election are also required.
S.J.R. 17 was originally developed by the legislature's select committee on public
lands in 1980. Nevada's state senate approved S.J.R. 17 on May 5, 1981 by a 20-0
vote, while the assembly action on May 22 was marked by a 40-0 vote.
The proposed amendment to Nevada's constitution, which if enacted can only be
repealed or amended by a similar vote of the public and legislative approval, provi­des
several important guarantees to the public on state control of the public lands.
This measure, of course, is being developed in anticipation of enough success with
the Sagebrush Rebel I ion movement to cause significant amounts of public lands to
eventually be transferred from federal to state control.
Following are the major elements from S.J.R. 17 reprinted for your information and
possible consideration in your own state.
Guarantee that pub I i c
lands wi I I be wisely
managed in multiple
use concept. ~ mw~r be II' IQ/.I UIIfTtdh •to 'r" "th"e' p"ur"po's"i!S- o-f r"ecr'l!! a~tlo"n", "?r a':"~m"r." "ror.l!,!s r"ry", m'·m­-
inlf and the conservation of water a.>'fd wtldlife and to erject tht1 ?'ttatest
numbo and best use: of !htt lands which artt economtcal and prott!Ct IM
productivitv of the lands.
Disposition of pro­ceeds
from public
lands.
Sec. 2. · Tht1 proctteds from sales of lands gmnred to this sratc by
-----------Congress. afto deductmg the cosrs of thtl saii!S. must btl used tint in till!
manner imoostld as a condition of granting thtl lands, and any surplus
must btl disrributed as providtld by Anicitl II of this Constitution. All
orho rtvtlnutl wilich •s derived from thostl lands, tncludinlf 1't!VtlnUtl from
oil and gas, mintlrtli, gtlothermai and ~zing leases and sallis of timber
and ?'avei. afro deducting :he costs ot man~rpng :host! lands .. must be
ust1d {irsr in the manner imposed as a condmon ot grantmg rnt1 lands,
and anY surplus, if chc lands wotl obtained bllfortl luiy l, 1981, must btl
disrribiued as providtld bv Articltl l l of this Constitution, and if
-
------------ ?btaint~d on or afro Juiy I. I98l. after deducting paymmts to local
govtl1'rlmmts in lieu of taxes on tho:re lands and othl!! deductions pt!r­.
mitred bv law. mav btl used by the state wrthout restr:cnon.
Article I I of the
Nevada Constitution
provides tor deposit
of certain money
into Nevada's perma­nent
schoo I fund.
Under "other deduc­tions
permitted by
law" the legislature
w iII address matters
such as a possibly
different tedera I
highway matching
formu I a with
public lands in
state control.
Public land access
is guaranteed.
5«. 3. TJut le~/aturt1 shall provid4 by law for thtl issuance of parmts
and till! ri!Suvarion of easements and other properry interests which
a:sstm! 1111biic acci!SS to .ft!derai and state lands upon thtl disposal of lands
vanted to this stattl by Con'§rt~ss. No parcel of land may btl sold or othtlr­wise
dispostld of except:
1. F'or thtl e:qxmJion of cities and tt1Wf!S o~. if nt~cnsary, to~ com-
'al purposes, if approvt!d individuafly by the !t~!]is/aturc by law.
2. For avicuiturai PU1'TJO:St!S if found suitable and cem(ied to Ju;"ll
water available for that purpostl by an orfico or o;Jicers charfl!!d by ,aw
with t/ro.stl dutii!S, if approved individually /Jy the leg!slature by law.
3. F'or sale or lease to an agl!!ncy or political subdivision of this state
or nonprofit corporation o~ association for public and rtiCrt!atioMl pur­poses.
upon tht! advice of thtl stattl agency charrrt!d with thtl manag!1ment
of the lands. if aflp~ovt!d individually as provided by law.
4. Po~ usc by an agmcy or insrf'Ummtality of tht1 Federal Govern­ml!!
rlt. upon thl!! advice of the state agt.'ncy charft!d by law with that duty,
if aPproved indlviduailv /Jy thtl legislatun by law .
.5. F' or mining claims which art! localtld or pat_mt~ prtrnuZflt to fed­eral
or srattllaw, and for leastl;r/or tht1 urraction or mrnerats •. oll o~ gas or
thtl UStl of gt10thcrmai IIM1TJ (lr.tn/MZIIt to 3fate law. Provision must be
made to~ the rt1st1rvation or sale of rights to mitm'tiLr .browll to uisl in till!
lands when dispo:r11d of by the state in any f7lfJ1UID' other than by location
or patent.
6. By leasi!S for the 1"a::inlf of liYntoclc, upon tht1 advice of the srare
agency charged with tht! fllllll41fl!!mtlnt ot the lands, if apprcved indivrd­uaily
as providt~d by law.
7. By otht!r ~Nscs and ea.fCmmts and rights of way for a period nor
to exceed 99 Yetli'S if the rmtat is at fair rntZr/cet valw and is rt!VaiUtld aJ
intervals not to exceed .5 ytiQI'S, upon thtl advice of thtl sUJte agency
charged with tht! managt~ment of thtl !ands, if approved individuaily by
tht1 /egi:rlaturtl /Jy law.
8. By uchanlfi!!S, for thtl purpostl of consolidation and better man­a!
ft!mtlnt and ustl ot the land. for parcels of equivalent size or vaiUtl, upon
:Itt! advicl!! of che srattl alfency char!ft!d with thtl manalfl!!ment o; thtl lands,
if approvt!d individually by the le![islaturt /Jy law. . .
9. For sales of land in parcels not lar<Jer than a 1t0mtnai sectton
which, btiCaustl of tht!ir location or othtlr charactoi:rtia. are difficult and
unt!COnomic to mana~. upon the advice of the suzre a!ft!ncy charf!ed with
thl!! manalfl!!mtlnt ot the lands, if approvt!d individually by 1h11 le!fis/aturt
/JYiaw.
The iefis/atun shall providtl by law for local governmems wtthin w~lltl Restrictions on th iur'sdicrtons rhe lanth art! located ro make recommendations concomng
":"------------ ·sales or other disposals of thostl lands. sale or disposal of
public lands under
state control •
2.
Plus additional language to make this
amendment consistent with existing
provisions in state constitution.
FUTURE OF SAGEBRUSH REBELLION DISCUSSED IN WASHINGTON, D.C •
•
United States Senator Paul Laxalt (R-Nevada) and Secretary of the Interior, James
Watt, in separate meetings in Washington, D.C. on March 9, 1981, told a group of
state legislators that the Sagebrush Rebel I ion has already accomplished a great deal
of good. Members of the group, including Nevada Assemblyman Dean Rhoads, Arizona
State Representative Joe Lane, and Montana State Senator Mark Etchart, have been
instrumental in their respective states in developing legislation regarding the
transfer of public lands from the federal government to state control.
The legislators were told by Secretary Watt that he "will not get involved directly
in the ultimate goal of the Sagebrush Rebel I ion," because of his constitutional man­date
in performing his duties; but he does feel very strongly that he must react to
many of the demands and requests of the Sagebrush Rebel I ion. The Secretary further
stated that "the Sagebrush Rebel I ion movement is chiefly responsible for several
appointments in the Interior Department, some not yet announced." The Secretary
requested that the group "submit a I ist of grievances and requests on public lands
and land management problems" for him to consider.
Both Senator Laxa It and Secretary Watt agreed that, for the short term, some of the
goals of the Sagebrush Rebel I ion can be accomplished on a "piece-meal fashion"
through the rule-making process and in legislation through Congress. The Senator
observed "that tot a I divestiture through Congress wou I d be d iff i cuI t at this time."
Senator Laxalt and Secretary Watt also supported a request by the legislators present
to arrange a suitable audience for the western states to present their case. They
both agreed that many new dimensions of unexplored public land management pol icy to
allow the states more authority in managing these lands must be reviewed. Senator
Laxalt stated that "President Reagan is looking for bold new solutions to serious
problems, including federal land management policies, facing the nation today." The
Senator assured the group that the President and the Administration would I isten to
new ideas and alternatives to the present land policies. Assemblyman Rhoads stated
that "We, the western public land states, should put together a first-class presen­tation
using academic professionals in areas of public land use. We have a real
story to tel I, not only in better land management, but also in large economic savings
on the federal budget, which I am sure wi I I appeal to the Reagan Administration. I
believe that the new administration wi I I be impressed with our findings and recommen­dations
on a new direction of public land management."
Rhoads went on to state that, "We now have the responsibi I ity and the opportunity to
press harder than ever before to bring about short-term solutions and at the same
time continue our long-term goal: the eventual divestiture of certain public lands
to meet the needs of our western states and also place us on equal partnership with
the rest of the states."
"The meetings with Secretary Watt and Senator Laxalt were worthwhile and productive,"
Rhoads concluded, "and both the Senator and the Secretary agreed that western state
legislators' complaints on federal land management issues were legitimate. Senator
Laxalt and Secretary Watt also sti I I cal I themselves 'Sagebrush Rebels', and
encourage western legislators to continue their efforts."
PRESIDENT REAGAN CONTINUES TO ENDORSE SAGEBRUSH REBELLION CONCEPT
While campaigning for the Presidency in 1980, Ronald Reagan on several occasions
stated that he could be "counted in as a Sagebrush Rebel." After his inauguration,
President Reagan has continued to follow through on his commitment with major
appointments of "Rebel I ion" supporters such as Interior Secretary Watt and BLM
Director Bob Burford.
The President sti! I makes reference to the Sagebrush Rebel I ion in speeches, such as
the following remarks made before members of the National Governors' Association in
February 1981.
Excerpts from President Ronald Reagan's Speech Given at Luncheon for
National Governors' Association, February 10, 1981
"I can say this by way of encouragement, I have a great feeling of empathy with the
Sagebrush Rebe I I ion. think that in recent years part of the increased cost of
lumber, and it has gone up tremendously, has been the government's restrictions on
what were once multiple use areas of the national forests. AI I of a sudden that was
shut off in answer to the environmental ists 1 claim for pure wilderness. And I don't
th1nk that it makes sense. I think that there are great tracts of government land,
particularly in the west, that were not hurt a bit by multiple use grazing, lumbering
or the search for minerals ••• we obeyed what was the constitution and the law of our
3.
land for at I those years of expansion, at I the way to the tOOth meridian.
Regardless, the fact is thaT it was set up that when a territory became a state,
other than forts or harbors or federal instal lations, the land then reverted to the
state. I think that when they got to the IOOth meridian and saw how much, how big
the west was, how much they were giving away, alI of a sudden they stopped doing
that. That's why states like your own have the biggest share of the land that is
federally owned. I 1d like to see that changed. I think that we have every right and
reason. I want the preservation of beauty. I want the preservation of wilderness
areas, of national parks. But to just own miles and miles of land that is not very
much different from the privately owned lands surrounding it and continue believing
the federal government not only has to hold it, but that the federal government is
embarked on a program of increasing the holdings as much as it can, pressuring and
harassing private individuals, making decisions taking land further out of use or
c i rcu I at ion ( i s not right) •••• "
BLM STILL INEFFECTIVE IN MANAGING WILD HORSES
The inabi I ity of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to effectively manage and main­tain
proper levels of wild horses and burros remains a critical problem in parts of
the West. BLM officials in the Susanvi I le, California, BLM District stated as
recently as May of this year that they lack adequate funding to properly manage ever­growing
herds of wild horses and burros.
The Susanv i I I e District of BLM contro Is sever a I m i I I ion acres of pub I i c I ands in
northeastern California and northwestern Nevada. An aerial survey of wild horse and
burro herds was completed on May 5, 1981. Some 2,338 wild horses were counted along
with 135 burros. Of the wild horses, 337 were new foals with completion of the
foaling season not expected unti I early June.
The problem in this BLM district is that wild horse funding for the current year wi I I
allow the gathering of only 250 wild horses from the range. Not only is the current
funding level inadequate to contain herd levels at the present numbers, but it also
wi II notal low BUM to remove excess wild horses to reach the optimum herd size of
some I, I 13 w i I d horses.
BLM STILL INEFFECTIVE IN MANAGING WILD HORSES
The BLM office in Susanvi I le states that wild horse herds increase naturally at a
rate of 20 percent per year. If these growing herds were left unchecked for the next
10 years, there would be as many as 7,047 wild horses in this one district by 1991 -
some 5,934 horses above optimum management levels prescribed by BLM.
To some persons not fami I iar with the problems of uncontrolled numbers of wild horses
on our public lands, this growth in wild horse and burro herds may seem positive.
However, uncontrolled numbers of wi ld_horses often result in the following:
overgrazing and trampling of the already sparse natural vegetation; long-term erosion
and damage to tragi le soi Is and ground cover; severe damage to wildlife habitat with
significant die-off of species unable to successfully relocate in other areas; man­datory
reductions in livestock grazing operations on public lands which may in turn
force some ranchers to sel I adjacent private agricultural lands for premature sub­division
development; and starvation of significant numbers of wild horses, par­ticularly
as a result of severe winter weather when combined with overgrazing by wild
horses.
The failure of BLM to properly manage wild horses has been one of the major reasons
for the Sagebrush Rebel I ion movment. Although initially it was the ranching industry
which protested BLM's wild horse programs, a further lack of corrective programs by
the Federal Government wi I I only create additional support for state control of these
public lands and their resources. This support can be expected from such entities as
wildlife groups, sportsmen, certain environmental groups, and perhaps even wild horse
protective societies.
Nevada State Senator Richard Blakemore, recently stated that, "The State of Nevada
believes that if states control led public domain lands, wild horse populations would
be managed in an economical, efficient and humane manner. Under a true multiple use
program as best provided by state control, public lands, natural vegetation,
wildlife, I ivestock and wild horses would all significantly benefit."
4.
Alaska
(The legis­lature
witt
be In sess I on
unt It end of
June t98tl
Arizona
Arizona
(Cont.)
Cat lfa-nia
(In session
most of
year)
STATES' LAND RIGHTS- "SAGEBRUSH REBELLION"- LEGISLATION THROUGH JUNE 2, 1981
Bi II, Resolution
or State Law
HCR 34 ( 1980)
HCR 40 (1980)
HB 644 ( 1980)
HB 31 U98tl
SB 1012 ( 1980)
(Arizona Revised
Statutes 37-901
to 37-909)
AS 2302 ( 1980)
AJR 16 U98 t)
ACA 29 (f 98 f)
Su~m~ary
Supports Nevada on the Sagebrush
Rebel lion issue.
Requests that the Governor cause
immediate land selections to which
Alaska is entitled from the United
States.
An act creating the Alaska State­hood
Commission to study and
recommend appropriate changes In
the relationship of the people of
At~ska to the United States.
Provides for the management, dis­posal
and use of public lands
under state control.
Several other important public
lands bills on a variety of
topics are also under
consIderatIon.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada taw.
Passed both Houses of the Legisla­lature
In tate March 1980, vetoed
by Governor Babbitt on Apr! t 8,
with a subsequent veto override
by the Senate on April 14, and the
House on April 15, 1980.
A referendum has been proposed by
a group of private citizens tor
either the 1981 or 1982 election
to overturn this Act. At the
present time, the group Is still
seeking signatures to place this
measure on the ballot.
Assemblyman Hayes did not seek an
overrIde to the Governa- 1 s veto
of A8 1407 from 1979. A8 2302
Incorporates the concepts of
AS 1407 Into a more comprehensive
study of the financial, legal, and
land management aspects of public
land ownership by the State. The
Attorney General, the Office of
Planning and Research, the State
Lands Commission and the Depart­ment
of Fish and Game wilt at t
participate In this study. Became
effective without the signature of
the Governor.
Urges Congress to enact legisla­tion
to transfer unreserved and
unappropriated federal lands to
the states.
Proposes to amend the Cat I torn fa
Constitution to guide management
of any pubt lc lands granted to
the state. Guarantees multiple
use of the pub! ic lands Including
conservation and development of
natural resources.
Current Status or
Vote by Legislature
Passed and read by
Governor on 5/9/80.
Passed and read by
Governor on 6/t/80
Passed House of
Representatives.
Presently In
Senate FInance
C011111lttee.
Original Passage:
Senate 20-10
House 47-t t
Veto Override:
Senate 21-8
House 46-8
Assembt y 78-0
Senate 40-0
In Assembly Energy
and Natural Resources
Committee.
In Assembly Energy
and Natural Resources
Committee.
Effective Date
7/2/80
7/31/80
t/t/81
Ca llforn Ia
(Cont.)
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
Bill, Resolution
or State Law
SB 693 Cl981)
SB 694 Cl98 I)
HJR 1006 (1980)
SB 170 Cl98 I )
SR 266 ( 1980)
SCR 129 < 1980)
HB 425 Cl981)
SB 1133 Cl981)
HJR 10 (1981)
sa 123 c 1981>
Summary
Amends state law relating to
consent to federal land acquisi­tions.
Requires hearings and
approval by Governor or Legis­lature.
Requires state to continue In­lieu
of tax payments to local
governments If certain public
lands are transferred from
federal to state control.
Provides funding tor a multi­state
study of the effect and
Impact of transferring public
lands from federal to state
contr-ol.
Similar- to the 1979 Nevada law,
and also lays claim to u.s.
Forest Service lands.
Endorses and supports the efforts
of western states to gain equality
with other states In public land
management, control and ownership.
Directs Attorney General to
explore the feasibility of
supporting Nevada's public lands
I ega! challenge, and to study
whether Idaho should also seek
control of the public lands.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada law.
Removes automatic state consent
to federal land acquisitions
within Idaho. Similar to the
1979 law passed In State of
Oklahoma.
Proposes to amend Idaho Consti­tution
to remove disclaimer
clause relating to the state's
agreement to never seek addi­tional
unappropriated public
I ands.
Introduced version of this bill
was similar to the 1979 Nevada
law. Amended in Senate to
provide that If Congress decides
to release BLM and C.M. Russell
Wildlife Range lands, the State
of Montana lays claim to such
public lands.
6.
Current Status or
Vote by Legislature Effective Date
In Assembly Energy
and Natural Resources
Committee.
Passed Assembly
Energy and Natural
Resources Committee
on Apr I I 29 • I s
presently In Assembly
Ways and Means
Committee.
House 50-10
Senate 35-0
Passed Senate on March
30, 1981 • Passed House
of Representatives on
May 22, 1981. Amendments
approved by Senate-House
conference committee on
May 26, 198 I •
Senate 19-16
House 55-15
Passed House of Repr-e­sentatives
(44-23).
Not voted on In Senate
before end of 1981
legislative session.
Defeated In Senate.
( 14-19)
Passed House of Repre­sentatives
(56-13).
Not voted on In Senate
before end of 1981
legislative session.
Passed Senate but was
killed in committee In
House of Representatives.
Adopted
4/8/80
Awaiting
approval
by the
Governor.
Adopted
4/15/80
Adopted
3/14/80
Montana
(Cont.)
Nevada
Nevada
<Cont.>
New Mexico
Bi II, Resolution
or State Law
HJR 1:3 ( 1981)
Summary
Urges Congress to transfer unap­propriated
public lands to
Montana and supports efforts of
other western states on Sage­brush
Rebel! ion.
AB 413 (1979) In 1979 Nevada enacted a law,
(Nevada Revised dubbed the "Sagebrush Rebellion,"
Statutes 321.596- which asserts state control and
321.599) ownership over the unappropriated
public domain lands now under the
management of the Federal Bureau
of Land Management.
AB 13 (1981>
SJR 17 (1981)
(See rei ated
article else­where
In this
news I etter)
SB I 76 (198 I)
S8 238 (198 I)
SJR 18 (1981)
SB 215 (1981)
HB 79 ( 1980)
(New Mexico
Statutes
19-15-1 to
19-15-10)
Requires state to reserve from
sales of state land routes
necessary to continue public
access to public lands.
A proposed constitutional
amendment to severely restrict
any future disposals of public
lands by Nevada.
Removes from state law auto­matic
state consent to federal
land acquisitions and requires
Federal Government to obtain
state consent tor certain uses
of federal lands.
A bill to guarantee a continua­ation
of In-lieu of tax payments
to local governments If Nevada
gains actual control of the
unappropriated public lands.
Urges Congress to enact legis­lation
transferring unappro­priated
public lands to the
states.
Authorizes Attorney General
to bring action If Federal
Government's use of public
lands Impairs state sovereignty.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada law.
Appropriation in 1981 to Attorney
General to develop the legal case
for Sagebrush Rebel! ion.
Current Status or
Vote by Legislature
K I I I ed In House
of Representatives.
Assemb I y 38- I
Senate 17-3
Assemb I y 40-Q
Senate 20-0
Senate 20-Q
Assembly 40-0
Senate 16-3
Assemb I y 40-Q
Senate 20-o
Assembly 38-0
Senate 17-3
Assemb I y 40-Q
Senate 19-0
Assembly 40-0
House 48-18
Senate 25-13
North Dakota HCR 3036 (1981) Supports the Sagebrush Rebel! ion
movement to transfer 8LM lands,
Passed House of
Representatives
and lands of other federal agencies and Senate.
such as the U.S. Fish and Wildt ife
Service and the u.s. Forest Service,
to the respective states.
7.
Effective Date
7/1/79
7/1/81
Must be aga I n
passed by 1983
legislature and
then approved by
voters in 1984.
7/1/81
7/1/81
Adopted
5/1/81
7/1/81
5/14/80
Adopted
3/25/81
Bill, Resolutlo"s
or State Law
Oregon HB 2982 (1981)
011 I I be i n
session unt I I
sometime In
July, 1981>
South
Dakota
Utah
Utah
<Cont.)
Wash lngton
Wyoming
HB 2987 ( 1981)
HB 3 185 <198 I)
SB 13 I ( 1981>
S85(1980)
HB 2 (1981)
HB 4 ( 1981)
PB 3593 ( 1980)
SJR 132 (1980)
HB 6 (1980)
(Wyoming
Statutes
36- 12-10 I to
36-12-109)
Summary
Similar to the 1979 Nevada law,
and also lays claim to u.s.
Forest Service lands.
Creates an Oregon Commission
on state and federal lands
and directs that commission
to study the Implications of
transferring ownership of
federal publ lc lands to the
states.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada
law, with special provisions
rei ating to former railroad
0 & C lands.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada
law, claiming state juris­diction
over the unappropriated
public lands.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada law.
Amends Section 63-8-1 of the
Utah Code to withdraw state
consent to exclusive federal
jurisdiction over certain
federal lands In Utah.
Repeals Section 65-6-1 of the
Utah Code relating to auto­matic
state consent to federal
land acquisitions tor u.s.
Forests.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada law.
Constitutional amendment to
remove disclaimer clause
relating to unappropriated
public lands In Washington.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada law,
and also lays claim to u.s.
Forest Service lands.
8.
Current Status or
Vote by Legislature
Tab I ed by House
Agriculture and
Natural Resources
Committee on May 5,
1981.
Passed out of House
Agriculture and Natural
Resources Committee,
but re-reterred to House
Ways and Means Committee
on May 26, 1981 on a
41-18 vote.
In House Committee on
Agriculture and Natural
Resources.
E tfect I ve Date
Passed Senate on February
6, 1981. Passed House of
Representatives on
February 25, 1981. Vetoed
by Governor on March 9,
1981. Senate overrides
veto of Governor, but over­ride
falls In House, both
on March 12, 1981.
House 57-11
Senate 20-7
Passed by legislature
and approved by the
Governor on February
20, 1981.
Passed by legislature
and approved by the
Governor on February
20, 1981.
Senate 42-1
House 90-7
(3/10/80)
Senate 38-6
House 89-8
(3/10/80)
House 48-13
Senate 21-8
7/1/80
5/12/81
5/12/81
D I d not go Into
effect because
the proposed
constitutional
amendment was
defeated at the
November 1980
general election.
3/10/80
STATE OF COLORADO
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS
136 State Capitol
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (3031866-2471
To The Honorable
Colorado State Senate
Fifty-Third General Assembly
First Regular Session
State Capitol
Denver, Colorado 80203
Ladies and Gentlemen:
----· .. ~--··
.;\iM 5, 1981
I hereby return to you Senate Bi 11 170,, "Concerning
Public Lands and Providing for State Control and
Administration of Certain Lands Within the Boundaries of
Colorado and Making an Appropriation in Connection
Herewith", which I disappr'oved and vetoed on
June 5 at 8:35 a.m ••
The Sagebrush Rebellion has been successful in capturing
public attention and in instigating a necessary and
overdue dialogue as to the administration of federal
lands. But while the Sagebrush Rebellion is good public
relations, it is bad law.. Even the supporters of this
bill who testified at committee hearings conceded that
it would have questionable impact.
This bill is defective in many ways--legal, administra­tive
and strategic. The combined effect of these flaws
require a veto.
The legal foundation for this bill is shaky in the
extreme. Colorado's admission to the United States in
1876 was facilitated by enabling legislation adopted by
Congress. This Enabling Act gave the federal government
title to these lands in question. It is erroneous to
state that this bill would br~ng about the "return" of
these 1 ands to Co lorado. r:c: or ado rtever owned these
lands in the first place. P·~lonents of this bill arcue
that the Enabling Act viol0t~1 the equal footin9 d~c­trine
among the states. A review of the relevant case
law clearly shows that the equal footing doctri"e is
i naop 1 i cab 1 e to land agreements made in the Enab 1 i ng Act
as a condition of statehood.
-.. ~iO.,. '•~ .I~MD·~ ~ ,·.y:.,., ... "
1-.'J,_- 7 --~~·--,: .,~.· \•1 ·:, . ..:..:..:;/./ \··-.· . .,.~··
"-~)1!7
Richard D.lamm,
Governor
-2- 6/26/81
canvasback Book Reissued:
The Wildlife Management Institute announces the release of a new edition
of H. Albert Hochbaum's classic book, The Canvasback On A Prairie Marsh. Shortly
after it first was published in 1944, the book received The Wildlife Society's
publication award and the Brewster Medal of the American Ornithologists' Union.
Updated, it reclaims its importance as a model study of the canvasback.
Hochbaum has observed and recorded waterfowl at Delta Marsh in Manitoba,
Canada for more than 40 years. The author's reflections and insights--in word and
through his detailed illustrations and paintings--have earned him international
respect as a biologist, author and artist. The Canvasback On A Prairie Marsh is
more than a study of a waterfowl; it is an exceptional piece of literature.
\ $15.95 ~Public
The 232-page book is available in paperback for $5.95 or in cloth for
from the Univ. of Nebraska Press, 901 N. 17th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588.
Land Grab Hits Snags:
The sagebrush rebellion's move to take National Forest and Bureau of
Land Management lands in the West and turn them over to private economic interests
is experiencing some difficulty in Nevada and Colorado, according to the Wildlife
Management Institute.
The District Court for the District of Nevada recently struck down the
legal theories that underlie the sagebrush rebellion laws of that state. The Nat-ural
Resources Defense Council reports that those stricken theories also may be
the foundation for the recently introduced federal legislation to grab public lands.
Nevada has moved for reconsideration by the court, NRDC says, but most
likely that motion will be denied. NRDC emphasizes that the case involves only
the theories underlying the sagebrush laws: it did not strike down Nevada's law.
Nonetheless, NRDC said, the law is clear: "the sagebrush rebels haven't a legal
leg to stand on."
In Colorado, Governor Richard D. Lamm vetoed a sagebrush bill passed by
the Legislature: Governor Lamm's veto message follows:
• • • continued
(CJ)Lo~ ~,. ~1/Jf)~
7ic;. ( ;,_ s- e')
This bill, carried to its logical and intended conclu·
sion, would impose an administrative responsibility on
the State far beyond that which we have demonstrated the
ability to handle. I am far from a blind defender of the
administrative policies of federal agencies. But
neither do I believe that State government is eithe.r
suited or able to assume the administrative resp,Q-nSi·
bilities now exercised by the Bureau of Land Management,
the Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, th~Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
National Park Service, the Bureau of Mines, the
Geological Survey, and others. The financial burden of
properly administering and managing these lands would
far outstrip our present resources and would inevitably
impose a substantial new tax burden on Colorado
citizens. At this point in Colorado's development, it
should be our purpose, as elected leaders, to do a better
job of managing that which is in our domain, not to
expand our domain many times over.
Enactment of this legisl,ation might win a fleeting bat­tle
of frustration with federal land management prac­tices,
but it would lose a much more important war. As a
matter of strategy and politics, this legislation makes
1 ittle sense at a time when Rocky Mountain states are
battling Congressional.attempts to limit severance taxes
and other proposals, such as the Energy Mobilization
Board, which would override state and local laws and
regulations. I share the frustrations of many
Coloradans and Westerners regarding our relationships
with the federal government. However, we would .be
foolhardy and naive to think that the people Of ttie
United States, relatively few of whom reside in "Rocky
Mountain states, would support the transfer of title'to
these public lands. Though we can lament our relatively
sma 11 numbers 1 n the ha 11 s of Congress, we must be
realistic as to the nonexistent prospects of ever having
Congress pass such legislation. New York State alone
has more votes in the U. S. House of Representatives than
the combined totals of Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Nevada, New
Mexico and Arizona. The strategy of the Sagebrush
Rebellion is a dead end and could backfire. Instead of
this course, I urge you to join me in pressuring for
assurance that state and local laws and regulations
apply when the federal government is acting as a
sovereign within our border. Further, Colorado $hould
seek shared decision making on the use of federal lands.
This bill strikes me as an affront to the new administra­tion
in Washington, including some people with close
Colorado ties. President Reagan and his operatives are
on the record in support of the principles of the
Sagebrush Rebellion, and a "good neighbor" relationship
between federal agencies and state and local entities.
~~ S~t6 5QJA-r!)
~ (l#-S-81)
Though our politics differ, President Reagan and his
team deserve a chance for their new policies and ap­proaches
to work. The Reagan Administration is still
young. It is certainly premature to judge their poli­cies
of federal land management a failure.
In having one of our own, former Speaker of the Colorado
House Bob Burford, as head of the Bureau of Land Manage­ment,
we can be assured that the Colorado perspective
and frustration will be represented. In his Senate
confirmation hearings, Mr. Burford acknowledged the many
shortcomings of federal land management but made clear
his conviction that the federal government should retain
ownership of federal lands. Bob Burford and his
colleagues deserve a chance to implement their program.
During the past year, four other states have considered
and rejected legislation of similar intent. While the
reasons for defeat vary, it is my judgement that the
futility and shallowness of the Sagebrush movement has
become evident, that the will of the people does not
support such legislation, and that the public wants the
new Administration and its "good neighbor" policy to be
given a chance to provide a more practical remedy.
J have been an outspoken advocate for many years of
states• rights, of a mor~ realistic and effective con­cept
of federalism, and of the need for greater sensi­tivity
on the part of the federal agencies to western
realities and lifestyles. If I thought for a minute that
this bill would further these goals, I would sign it wit~
conviction. But it will have the unintended effect of
taking us backwards instead of moving us ahead.
Senate Bill 170 stands on dubious Constitutional ground,
it would lead to an administrative mess; and it is an
unsophisticated political strategy. For these reasons,
it is vetoed.
Respectfully submitted,
~-S ()~e- ~
Rich~d D. La11111
Governor
Page 1
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS OF HR. HAROLD C. HILES, 316 FIFTEENTH AVENUE SOCTH, NAMPA,
IDAHO 83651, REPE.ESENTING THE IDAHO CONSUMER AFFAIRS, INC. OF BOISE, IDAHO AND THE
GOLDEN EAGLE AUDUBON SOCIETY OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO., REGARDING H.R. 5439 AND
H.• R. 7837o Dated: January 15, 1981
To the Honorable James Santini
Congressman at Large: State of Nevada
Chairman: House Sub-Corlh'Tlittee on Mines and Mining
1626 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Congressman Santini:
This will gratefully acknowledge your letter of December 5, 1980 regarding
the testimony submitted your committee on behalf of Idaho Consumer Affairs, Inc.,
and the Golden Eagle Audubon Society. This writer wishes to thank you also for
for your kind offer to include additional pertinent information into the Official
Record of your November 22, 1980 hearing.
We do have more information relative to the proposed legislation to offer
and it is felt perhaps comments on your H.R. 7837 would be more appropriate for us
to cow~ent on as our activities and rr~in concern is within the confines of the
"Proposed Bi-rds of Prey EJcpansion Area11 , which the so-called Sagebrush Rebels are
endeavoring to defeato We therefore, are submitting considerable material for the
Public Record which \vill pertain, not only the the subject of Public Lands in gan-eral
but specifically to this Birds of Prey Areao However, let there be no mistake
regarding the fact we do strongly oppose the transfer of Federal Forest · lands to
the States as proposed in your HoRo 54)6.
102 .
With reference to Section}\ of H.R. 7837 (all further references will be made to
this particular bill) subsection (10) wherein speaking of 11degrading11 is concerned,
it is our view that this context referred to voting rights and political repre-sentation,
and there can be no question that the new states were accorded their two
Senators and a representative in proportion to the population of the new state.
There was no feasible way all new states could be created equal geographically
and with an oqual amount of of terrHory given the historical time the nei.; states
were created and the historical backgrounds of acquisition of th~ lands by tho Fed-eral
Government such as the Louisiana Purchase, the War With Mexico Treaty, the
·~ t- I ?·91) Page 2
Supplemental comments of Harold Co Miles, Nampa, Idaho, representing Idaho Consumer
Affairs, Inc. and the Golden Eagle Audubon Society regarding H.R. 5436 and H.R.78J7.
· new
Boundary Settlement Treaty for the~Northwest Territory with Great Britain and the
Gadsen Purchase from Mexico. After all, there were economic inequities assumed
when California and Texas were admitted to the Union not to mention the states East
of the Mississippi River created from the old Northwest Territory covered by the
Ordinance of 1787 which were Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin •. There-fore,
it seems the 11equal footing" doctrine is not very valid, in light of the ad-mission
of the previously mentioned states; not to mention the squabbles between
the Thirteen Original Colonies over their adoption of the Articles of Confederation
when the old Northwest Territory land held by some states such as New York and Vir-ginia
had to be ceded·. to the Federal Government before such states as Maryland
would adopt the Articles of Confederation. In addition,the Quebec Act passed by
Great Britain, serving somewhat as a precedent. for later states being formed in
North America, did rot cont;iin any provisions of 11equal footing11 by any of the terri-tory
which later became a state of the United Stateso
Referring to Section lOJ (c) of the bill, the agricultural interests in Idaho,
in the past, have rot and in our judgment will not in the future, act responsibly
via the highest state authority, the Idaho Legislature which is controlled by the
agri-business interests, timber companies and out-of-state mining interests, re-garding
the accepted principles of conservation and recreation; considering· : that
conservation and recreation are beneficial uses of Idaho water as determined by
the 11Idaho Tomorrow" program and the Idaho State Water Plan· .when based on continuing
I
opposition in the legislature and present pending cases before the Idaho Supreme
Court relative to the minimum stream flows of the Snake River and the desires of
many of the Sagebrush Rebels to further reduce the yearly mean flow of the Snake
River at the Murphy, Idaho gaguing station (no. lJ-172500) ~ee exhibit No. 4~rom
9404 cfs. (cubic feet par second) to even below the JJOO cfs set as the minimum
stream flow for the Snake River at the Murphy, Idaho gaguing station by a former
session of the Idaho Legislature when finally the Idaho State Water Plan was adopted
after many years of wrangling and opposition by the agri-business interests
'[, - 1'5' -~1) Page J
Supplementa'l comments of Harold C. Miles, Nampa, Idaho representing Idaho Consumer
Affairs, Inco and the Golden Eagle Audubon Society regarding H.R. 5436 and H.R.78J7.
represented in the Idaho State Legislatureo In this connection, let it be further
stated that even the Idaho Power Company does not favor further depletions of the
(also see exhibit No. 8 page J)
flows of the Snake River, au our exhibit 4 indicates would happeJI\if further land
in the Snake River Basin, in Idaho Power Co's territory were put under agricult~ral
development which would require pump sprinkler irrigation using electricity to man
the irrigation pumps, which would be necessary if more Public Lands in Southern
Idaho were put into irrigated farmlands requiring Snake River water. A consid-arable
portion of the Public Lands requiring Snake River water for irrigation lie
within the boundary area of the 11Pr9posed Birds of Prey Expansion Area 11 (see exhibit
No. 5) However, in passing, it should be noted there are approximately 84,)70 acres
of new high quality arable lands under the Salmon Falls tract and the Bruneau Plat-eau
Water Development Project which do not lie within the Birds of Prey Area and
82,840 of supplemental arable lands (needing additional water) also within these
two projects, and the lift to pump water from the Snake River is not nearly so great
as the lands within the Birds of Prey Areao In addition, the Salmon Falls Tract
has been recorr~ended already for development by the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Idaho Legislature, as well as by former and some present members of Idaho's COng-ressional
delegation, as well as the Idaho Department of Water Resources. Also, it
should be mentioned the Salmon Falls Tractwill not require nearly as much water
pwmped from the Snake River for irrigation, since it receives most of its water from
the South Hills which lie South of the Snake River. Therefore it can be readily seen
that there is a total of 167,210 acres, approximately, which can produce additional
crops within the State of Idaho, as well as the State of Idaho's lands and the private
lands within the Birds of Prey Area Boundary for the production of additional agri­cultural
crops, not to mention the permissible gr~zing of 65,000 AUM's which will be
permitted to continue, which negates any legitimate reason for not establishing the
"Proposed Birds of Prey Expansion Area 11 • (see Exhibit No. 6 of 1,3 pages--page 1)
It should be noted that Idaho's grazing feesfrom state lands range from $).00
for 1981
to $6.00 par AUM whereas the BLM fees are $2.)1 per AUM for 1981 which is a great
1\
( \- 'S-81) Page 4
'-'
Supplemental comments of Harold Co Miles, Nampa, Idaho representing Idaho Consumer
Affairs, Inco and the Golden Eagle Audubon Society regarding H.R. 5436 and H.R. 7837.
benefit to the 6) livestock operators using approximately 65,000 AUM's per year in
the Birds of Prey Boundary areao In addition, for the FY year 1981 $6,707,865 will
be paid to Idaho's counties in-lieu-of-taxes, and altho the payment is less than the
payment of FY 1980, the payment represents only a reduction of BLM in-lieu-payments
counties
of 1.5%. Furthermore, it is very doubtful if the [\ of Idaho could financially
afford to lose the BLM revenue of $6,707,865 received in FY 1980 and·the State of
Idaho the $1,588,845 it received from the BLM, as its semi-annual FY 1980 payment,
or the $10, )14,553 Idaho received as its fourth quarter FY 1980 payment from the
U.S. Forest Service, especially in view of the fact the BLM has budgeted $15,797,500
for its FY 1981 expenditures for Idahoo (see exhibit' No. 7 of 1? pages). Inasmuch
as the raptors and grazing·are absolutely compatable and to a great degree the ex-ploration
for gas & oil and some mining activities are al so compatible with the
raptor feeding activities, the best use of this area is obviously the multiple use
of the area by the above mentioned activities, not the ploughing up of the area for
row crop agricultural production, which will destroy the food base for-some of the
raptors and deplete the flow of the Snake River reducing the hydroelectric gener-ating
capacity of some of the Idaho Power Co's power plantso
It is our opinion some protestors and members of the Sagebrush Rebellion still
retain the mentality of the cattle and timber barons of past who do rot want any
reasonable management mandated by the Federal Land Policy }~nagement Act of the
Congres~and as interpreted by the courts. Needless to say, this legislation was
enacted by the Congress to cure some of the very ills the degraders, both past and
present, subjected the public lands too These Sagebrush Rebels and their cohorts
still want freedom of action to utilize the public lands in any manner they choose,
without interferrence from any one, a private individual, conservation organization,
or federal official mandated by Congress to enforce the lawo The return to feudalism,
as far as the rights of the vast majority of the United States Citizens, who actually
Olm the public lands, and the residents of the great majority of Idflhoans who en joy
the publj.c lands, is not the proper and best multiple use of the BLM and Forrest
0- IS --8 l) Page 5
Supplemental comments of Harold C. Miles, Nampa, Idaho representing Idaho Consumer
Affairs, Inc. and the Golden Eagle Audubon Society regardinc; H.R. 54)6 and H.R. 78)7
Service lands as is stated is one of the purposes ~~ndated in Section lOJ (c) of H.R.
78)7.
Referring to Section 401 (a) in which navigable rivers is referred to, we can
envision a real donneybrook and years of litigation in the courts should the State
of Idaho authorize any action near or under the streambeds of navigable rivers in
Idaho (one that will float a log 10 inches in diameter) which would pollute the
drinking water of cities using the river water for cullinary use, or which would
degrade the water quality for fish, wildlife or other prior beneficial uses of the
rivers' watero This fact is especially pertinent when considered in light of the
present economic plight of the State of Idaho when the state agency budgets are
being reduced so sufficient inspectors would not be available to inspect, supervise,
or investigate complaintso A good example of the reduced inspection activity which
is relavent is that the Idaho Department of Water Resources does not have sufficient
inspectors to inspect the many storage water dams it is required to or should under
the Federal Dam and Safety Aot.
In conclusion, let it be stated that during the hearings of the BLM relative to
the Birds of Prey Environmental Impact Statement, there were more people testifying
in favor of enlarging the Birds of Prey Area than opposed, and-more letters received
in support of the expansion (822) than were opposed to the expansion (46). (see
BLM records of meetings and Exhibit No. 5). In addition, the information released
by the BLM and many other writers indicate to us that the BLM has been, in the main,
very fair and impartial in administering the public land.-la\-Ts, as well as many, many
people and organizations, both inside and outside Idaho favor retaining the present
public lands in Federal ownership, as well as the enactment of the "Proposed Birds
of Prey Expansion Area". (see Exhibit·~ No.•sfthrough ;z.,h ). Therefore, it is
mooved and requested at this point this supplemental comment and testimony with the
additional exhibit·~ No's. · 4 throug~), ~s well as your letter of December 5, 1980,
be added to the permanent public record of your committee's hearingo
Respectfully sub~~l~6'd, // rYJA "6J
Harold C. HiloSof~nJJ!"P• /F ~, .l
ICL LEGISLATIVE'ALERT
No.4
wherl, lwG days befor~ it became law,
Earl Hardy, who owns land. within the
Box Canyon
needs your help
Box Canyon near Hagerman is one canyon, filed for all· unappropriated
of the largest remaining Thousand water in Box Canyon. Hardy's permit
Springs left largely intact, the 11th application effectively blocked state
largest spring in the United States. Box protection. ·
Canyon spring feeds a stream which The law still recognizes the signif­provides
habitat for the rare Shoshone lcance of Box Canyon to the citizens of
sculpin, two rare snail species, and Idaho for · scenic and recreational
other wildlife. Box Canyon has been values. This law has served as the basiS
nominated as a National Natural Land- for effecttve opposition by the Idaho
mark and was identified as the third Ftsh and Game and Parks· ana· Rec·
ranked site in the U.S. FISh and Wildlife reation departments to proposals to
Service's "Important FISh and Wildlife destroy Box Canl}on's resources. Now
Habitats of Idaho" inventory. In HB 640 would remove this reeognltion
addition, Box Canyon supports a high and approve Hardy's bid to develop a
quality (Class I) rainbow trout fishery. fish farm, using Box Canyon waters.
Box Canyon also has significant The major impacts of HB 640:
recreational values. The spring wells up 1. It would restrict public use of the
from the base of a sheer basalt cliff, area by changing the language in the
forming a large blue pool. Midway law from 1'lands devoted to recreational
along Box Canyon, the creek drops in a use" to "lands devoted to natural
12-foot waterfall on its way to the Snake scientific study and limited recreational
River. The lower portion of the canyon use."
IS p1,1blic (BLM) land. 2, It would set an unheard of
REcognizing its outstanding natural precedent: It wtiuld transfer ownership
values, the Idaho Legislature pa5sed a of Box Canyon Creek streambed to Earl
bill in 1971 designating Box Canyon as Hardy. Nevet·before has Idaho granted
a recreational water, and directed the private ownership of a river or stream
Idaho Department of Parks and Rec- bed. This has profound implications for
reation to appropriate all unapprop- all Idaho waters. The implications for
riated water iapproximately 600 cubic fisheries, recreation, water quality, ag­feet
per second), in the canyon in the riculture and other resources are
.publicWeresLB.JJitbe bill WiiS tllwar..t t:!e"-"~g~-!-no~~u!:. !h!_s_~ _quit~. !>ossibly a
Inverted rates
In the last Alert, we mentioned that
the Idaho Public Utilities Review
Committee had recommended that
inverted rates be banned for residential
customers. That recommendation has
now been put into bill form by Rep.
Gary Montgomery, R-Boi$e, and has .
been introduced into the House State
Affairs Committee. The bill IS HB 655
and will likely be ~onsidered by the
committee before you get thiS Alert.
FEBRUARY I 9, I 98 2
violation of the State Constitution, as
well.
3.The bill excludes the lower half of
Box Canyon from state recognition as a
recreational area, which will make it
more difficult to protect public use and
public values in Box Canyon.
4. HB 640 circumvents the standard
water rights permit process by extending
Hardy's water right to 1988. (It is due to
e&pire next year, since he has not yet
put it to beneficial use) . No other Idaho
water rigJ,t bolder has · been accorded
such a privilege.
5 . .The bill changes the use for which
Hardy's water right was granted. Hardy
currently has a permit for using Box
Can~(;>n water for· aquaculture only.
The · bill ~xtends his right to cover
hydropower development as well.
If thiS legislation passes, it will put
pressure ori the BLM to grant what
Hardy is ultimately after: a right-of-way
across public land that would . enable
Hardy to build a fiSh hatchety in
adjacent Blind Canyon. With a right of
way, Hardy could connect Box Springs
,water with Blind Canyon, which is a
more viable site for a fiSh farm. To date,
BLM has not granted an easement
because of Intense public opposition.
· Action: Call the House Resources
and Conservation Committee,
334-2060. Request a public hearing on
HB 640 and express opposition to the
bill.
If you are a member of a t:>hone net,
you will be alerted when HB 655 gets to
the floor of the House. If you aren't,
please write or call your representatives
now and urge them to oppose the bill.
State land
amendment case of conflict, those values would legislators in both houses for the
A constitutional amendment has automaticaUy lose. purchase of any land In Idaho by federal
been introduced that would allow the Present language in the constitution agencies, outside an incorporated city.
State Land Board to give tenure to suggests that thiS would be the case This kind of legislation is aimed •
livestock . operators holding grazing now--that lands which might be trans blocking acquisitions of land for wildllle
leases on state land. Presently leases ferred to the state cannot be managed refuges, for other wildlife habitat
expire after 10 years and are then for multiple use. There IS sorile question purposes, or for purchase of priVate·
subject to competitive bidding. · about it. In defending the "sagebrush inholdings iri wilderness or recreation
SJR 18 would take out the constitut- rebellion," Atty . Gen. David Leroy has areas. (This bill excludes acquisitions in
ional requirement that state endowment said that transferred lands could be the Sawtooth Recreation Area, but is
lands be managed for the ".mcudmwn ,mat)aged for. mu~le tiSe, despita.what --d. bad leglsletion).
possible amount.'' It would substitute for the constitution now says. · · Aside from · diSco!.lraging acqUiSition
that language ·calling for "maximum If multiple use for transferred lands is of land for important public purposes,
long-term financial return." Presumably in fact possible (uider the constitution as the bilL also interferes with private
thiS would let the Land Board give it stands now, SJ~l ·18 would remove property rights. It would allow the
tenure to grazing leaseholders, as is now any doubt. It would rule . aut multiple klgislature to deny a private land owner
done on federally-managed lands. . use· management. The public lands 1M OJ>tion of selling his land,· or an
There is another aspect to this would be manage_d for commercial uses easement to a federal agency.
amendment. It also adds language that return·dollar$ to·the· state. Wildlife Since majority apptoval in both
referring to lands "acquired by" the state or recreation values would always be houses IS required, the majority on any
from the federal government. This sacrificed, if t~ey.got in the way. committee considering such legislation
provision would also apply to those Th~dment was in the House could deny legislative consent by hold­lands.
This means that if the "sagebrush_ . .ResOurces and Conservation Comm- tng the measure in committee,· or
rebels". S!Jcceed .il! g~!!!!!a_~s ittee headed by Rep. Varp Chatbum. refusing to print it. What thiS really
man9~ by Jb~Lt.f or Forest Service Please . write chairman Chatbum means IS that a few legislators on key
transferred to the state, they could not ·oppostng SJR 18. Also write or call committees could block any acqu~-
be rnanaged for multiple use. In, ca(se of . your leplators. itlorts .
. conflict with "long term financ;ial Also. in House Resources and Con- 'When you write Chairman Chatbum
return," no consideration could be · · and your legislators opposing SJR 18,
given to wildlife, or to recreation. In seryation WN · HB 680, which would also ask them to. vote against HB 680.
.. require approval of a majority of
- ,£-'Otllrnents needed
' on.· mining bills
Introduced in House Resources is HB cost change will result in reduced
711, which would weaken state regul- inspections, and there are already too
ation of dredge mining. There are also few.
two Senate bills which would provide SB 1378, drafted by the Attorney
long overdue strengthening of the State General for the Lanci -Department,
Land Department's authority, one for amends Idaho's 9redge Mining Act.
the regulation of dredge mining, and First, It redefines "dredge mining" to
the other for surface mining. Letters are cover new dredging methods which are
needed opposing HB 711, and support- only ambiguously covered, if at all,
ing the Senate bills. under ,the existing definition.
HB 711 in House Resources, is the Second, It clarifies the process for
work 'of small miners. It reduces the appeal of Land Board decisions under
present bond requirement for dredge the Act. It speeds up the court process
mining from .$15,000 for the first 10 . for considering such appeals, and It
acres or portion thereof, to $1,500 per makes explicit that the Land Board can
acre for the first 10 acres, and $1,000 enforce Its·· decision even if it Is
for each additional acre. Due to bad appealed,. and unless the·court issues a
drafting, it also apparently removes any stay of enforcement. SB 1378 Is a
bond requirement at all for dredge modest but good bill.
operations of less than an acre. SB 1380, also drafted by the
The bill also strikes existing langui:!ge Attorney General, amends the Surface
which allows the Lanc;l Department to Mining Act. It makes a number of sound
charge dredge . operators for the per procedural ·. changes· in the sections
diem costs of mine inspections. Usually covering enforcement and appeals. It
two inspections are done each year, at a strengthens the bonding requirements,
cost to the Operator of $100 to $200. giving the Land Board ~l,.lthority to sue
This Is a damaging bill. There Is no an operator for excess costs If. the
way a $1,500 bond will cover operator's bond does not cover reclam­streambed
damage a dredge miner can ation costs incurred by the state If an
cause on a one-acre claim; indeed, the operator jumps bond. It redefines
present bond of $15,000 is probably too "surface mining operatiops" to include
low for streambed operations. Requir- exploration roads in the minimum
ing no bond for quarter or half-acre acreage requirement necessary far def­operations
is ridiculous,- The inspection inition as. a s~ace mining . operation
Another attack
__ ()n land pla~ning ______ . _____ _
HB 494. Governor's amendments to
the Local Plannlrw Act. ICL supports.
See the last alert for an explanation.
The legislation is still In the House Local
Government Committee. It has not yet
come before the committee for .dis­cussion.
Two anti land-use planning bills pave
been introduced by Rep. Gene Win­chester,
R-Kuna, HB 641 and HB 741.
They are repeats of bills he has
Introduced in previous years.
HB 641 would amend the Local
Planning Act to allow city or countv
Quarters update
• -~i~;-: Almost 1, 700 quarters have
~red into the Joint Finance-Approp­,
riations Committee. (JFAC) since we
started our Quarters for • Clean Air
campaign. ltis, without question, .the
_ @"Qest ma!Ung__the l.egislafule .Fiscal
Office has ever handled; and the
quarters keep rolling in. · "'
voters to set an election on the question
of whether or not to have planning and
zoning. The issue would not be what
kind of local land use regulation, or
specific issues, but a· choice between
h&.ilng local regulation, or having none.
HB 741 would remove the prqvision
that now requires all counties and cities
to plan and zone. This \vould make it
optional for county commissioners or
city councils. So we could have some
counties in Idaho wide open to unregul­ated
development, and others with
planning and zoning. A deeision by
citizen's groups, individuals, and, of
course, the Idaho Conservation
League. With few exceptions, all have
recommended reinstatement of the
13ure(lu. . ..
. OU.. job now 1s to see that'tht Bureau
·g--·nof only refun~ed, out that iCls
refunded . adequately and with few
restrictions. Y~u . can help! If you
haven't sent your quarter ln, do it rtow.
· (JFAC, ldah9 Statehou$8, BoiSe 10
(the law now has a 5-acre minimum,
exclusivE!. of expkmslion-roads).
Most importantly, the bill adds "mine
or mill waste" to coverage under the
Act. Abandoned tailings or waste piles
which are opened up for reworking are
not now covered by any Idaho mining
law. This amendment br1ngs such
operations under the Act. It exempts
mine or mill waste associated with active
underground or surface mines from
coverage (this is to prettent opposftfon
by the Idaho Mining Association).
SB 1378 and SB 1380 were int­roduced
in the t Senate Resources
Committee. On Feb. 19, both were
withdrawn at the Attorney General's
request, apparently to work out object­ions
the Mining Association · still had.
The current plan Is to· return them. to
committee in revised form within a
week.
Action: If yol,.lr legislator Is -on the
House Resources Committee, call
him/her and urge opposition to HB 711
(It should be considered very soon). If
your legislator Is on the Senate
Resources Committee, write and urge
support for SB 1378 and SB 1380. Add
that SB 1380 should be strengthened to
cover surface effects of underground
mining (which are not now regulated
under any mining law) and to cover
mine and mill wastes at both active and
abandoned mines.
county A not to have land use
regulation would ··put pr•ure ,on
neighboring counties to go the same
way. Existing policy lets local officials
l:lecide how to aJ)ply planning and
zoning, but makes local land use
regulatton state policy. Both of these
bm$ W<>uld repeal that policy. Both are
In the House Resources and Con­servation
Committee.
Write your legislators opposing HB
641 and HB 741, and supporting HB
494.
83720). We must keep the pressure on .
Write your legislators (Statetiouse,
Boise 83720) or call (334-2000) and
urge them to support reinstatement.
Finally, write lette~ to the editor of your
lOcal; ~aper- i.trgrng oth~~~rt----~
reinstatement. ·
If we get the Bureau back, it Will be
due largely to your efforts. Thank you
for your participation.
NON·PROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Boise ldalto 83702
Permit No. 211
As a result qf the public concern ~
reinstatement of Idahcis Air QuaJitv
Bureau, House Speake~: Ralph
Olmstead created a special committee
to study its re"establishment JFAC has
announced that they will defer ·~
decision on refunding of the program
until the special committee has. made its
report. Members of the special comm.­lttee
are: Rep. Robert Geddes,
R·Preston, chafrman; Rep. Michael
Sharp, R-Nampa; Rep. William Lytle,
R-Pinehurst; Rep. George Johnson,
D-Lewiston; and Rep. Louis Horvath,
D-Pinehurst.
TED TRUEBLOOD
The special committee has , been
hearing . testimony. from industry,
719 8TH AUE SOUTH
NAMPA.. ID

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

The contents of this item, including all images and text, are for personal, educational, and non-commercial use only. The contents of this item may not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of Boise State University Special Collections and Archives. For permissions or to place an order, please contact the Head of Special Collections and Archives at (208) 426-3958 or archives@boisestate.edu.

Full Text

i·.1.r. Norman i.'t'einstein , Editor
Boise Vision
box 6827,
Boise , ID 83707
Lear kr. Weinstein :
J-29-81
dere is the piece on the Sagebrush Hcbellion
that Vera Hoyce asked me to write. 1 hope you can run the box
at the end; our UOPL outfit needs all the help it can get .
Ted Trueblood
719 8th Ave • . s.,
Nampa, ID 83651
ph. 467-3779
The Best 'l'hing Around Boise
By Teellion. Billions are at stake. 'fhe
Sagebrush Ripoff backers nay t hey vvant only to ·t,ransfer title
frolp t he f ederal t:,nverruaent (ut>) to t-he states (also us).
Don't you believe it! 'l'he real noti ve is to L,et the gest
of our land into private ownership.
Can you believe for one moment that the backers of
the Sar:cbrush H ebel~ion are so altruistic t hey'd spend millions
of dr.llars only to transfer title frNn t.he fedural gtwernment
to the western stat.es, simply because they believe the states
would manat;e p.Jd:!: l ned to return control of our
destiny to the peopl~ of Utah by transfeering title ~f the
unappropriated vublic lands to the state capitoland, from
there, to t.he c('unty authorities and, ultinately, to the
private citizens." .
'l'here are eleven public-land states--\vashingt('n,
4
Oregon, California, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Nontana,
·Wyoming, Colorado, and New Hexico. Some of the sagebrushers
say they want to ttreturn" the public lands and natif'nal forests
to the states, but the states never did own them. All 30 million; r.l.'he
BU.1, with 12 million acres of land in Idaho, spent $13 million
and took in ~6 million.
'.1.'he land nobody wanted 100 years ago now looks
mighty attractive to a lot of folks. They've discovered that
it's much more valuable than anyone realized until comparatively
recently. Some of the resource users--miners, stockmen,
loggers--were upset by the Ii'ederal Land Policy and Management
5
Act of 1976 under which our land is managed for the greatest
, publiC' good . But the energy companies are the big push behind
the Sagebrush hebellion.
Senator Nalcolm ilallop , of \llyoming , made an
incautious statemen~ at the LASER (League for the Advancement
of States Equal Rights) meeting in Salt Lake City last November.
He said: "The public lands of the 1dest are a vast national
resource containing 70 percent of all western ccal, 80 pe~cent
of oil resources, 80 percent of high-grade tar sands, 80
percent of oil shale , 40 percent of natural gas supplies, and
a significant portion of uranium and geotherman (potential) ••••
in addition to a pm wealth of non-energy minerals. "
LAS£.11. coord~nates the efforts of all the Sagebrush
Rebellion groups in the various western states . Its budget
for 1981 is more than $1~ million. In opposition , here in
Idaho, we have Save Our Public Lands , Inc ., a little group
that feels rich when it has $100 in the bank .
But eventually we'll win. h'e must win . We can't
lose our public lands. They're the best thing arC'lund Bilise .
If
BOX {to follow conclusion}
Membership in Save nur Public Lands, Inc ., is
~10 fauily or individual , ~3 student, and $50 contributor.
Our address is Box 844, Boise , ID g3701 .
Volume 3 Number 2
COALITION
COMMENTS
Ed i Tor 1 s Note
Prepared by:
Nevada Legislature's Select Committee
on Pub I i c Lands
Legislative Bldg., Rm. 215
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 885-5637
June I 1981
This is the seventh issue of Coalition Comments, which was initiated in October 1979
as a primary means of communication and informationsharing on public lands issues in
the West, particularly the Sagebrush Rebel I ion. The Nevada Legislature's Select
CommiTtee on Public Lands accepted the initial responsibi I ity for Coalition Comments
and the establishment of a clearinghouse for public lands and Sagebrush Rebel I ion
information. It is hoped that at some later date CSG 1s Western Conference or a
similar regional entity wi II be able to assume these functions. Unti I that time,
Nevada wi II continue to prepare Coalition Comments on a quarterly basis and maintain
an up-to-date clearinghouse of public lands and Sagebrush Rebel I ion information.
We would ask a! I readers to please forward copies of news articles and clippings,
legislative proposals and actions, upcoming or recent meeting summaries, and other
materials relating to public lands matters in the West to the above address. Each
issue of Coalition Comments wi II high! ight some of the happenings around the West
with other news of general interest. We need to know what is happening in your area
so that we ·can alI share and benefit from the efforts of one another.
Our mos-t sincere thanks are extended to all those persons 'Nho have so conscientiously
provided infor:natior. to the clearinghouse i1 the past. Our only regret is that 01e
are unable to include a! I of this information in Coalition Comments. However, please
be aware that a I I information is retained and pI aced in our c I ear i nghouse f i I i ng
system by state and/or topic. If you should ever have any quesTions regarding the
SagelY us h Rebe I I ion or reI ated pub I i c I ands issues, just drop us a note or give us a
ca I I •
Editor
NEVADA'S PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT MOVES AHEAD
With approval of S.J.R. 17 by the legislature on May 22, 1981, Nevada's proposed
constitutional amendment on public lands has cleared the first of three tests before
it becomes effective. Approval by both houses of the Nevada Legislature in 1983 with
final approval by Nevada voters in the 1984 general election are also required.
S.J.R. 17 was originally developed by the legislature's select committee on public
lands in 1980. Nevada's state senate approved S.J.R. 17 on May 5, 1981 by a 20-0
vote, while the assembly action on May 22 was marked by a 40-0 vote.
The proposed amendment to Nevada's constitution, which if enacted can only be
repealed or amended by a similar vote of the public and legislative approval, provi­des
several important guarantees to the public on state control of the public lands.
This measure, of course, is being developed in anticipation of enough success with
the Sagebrush Rebel I ion movement to cause significant amounts of public lands to
eventually be transferred from federal to state control.
Following are the major elements from S.J.R. 17 reprinted for your information and
possible consideration in your own state.
Guarantee that pub I i c
lands wi I I be wisely
managed in multiple
use concept. ~ mw~r be II' IQ/.I UIIfTtdh •to 'r" "th"e' p"ur"po's"i!S- o-f r"ecr'l!! a~tlo"n", "?r a':"~m"r." "ror.l!,!s r"ry", m'·m­-
inlf and the conservation of water a.>'fd wtldlife and to erject tht1 ?'ttatest
numbo and best use: of !htt lands which artt economtcal and prott!Ct IM
productivitv of the lands.
Disposition of pro­ceeds
from public
lands.
Sec. 2. · Tht1 proctteds from sales of lands gmnred to this sratc by
-----------Congress. afto deductmg the cosrs of thtl saii!S. must btl used tint in till!
manner imoostld as a condition of granting thtl lands, and any surplus
must btl disrributed as providtld by Anicitl II of this Constitution. All
orho rtvtlnutl wilich •s derived from thostl lands, tncludinlf 1't!VtlnUtl from
oil and gas, mintlrtli, gtlothermai and ~zing leases and sallis of timber
and ?'avei. afro deducting :he costs ot man~rpng :host! lands .. must be
ust1d {irsr in the manner imposed as a condmon ot grantmg rnt1 lands,
and anY surplus, if chc lands wotl obtained bllfortl luiy l, 1981, must btl
disrribiued as providtld bv Articltl l l of this Constitution, and if
-
------------ ?btaint~d on or afro Juiy I. I98l. after deducting paymmts to local
govtl1'rlmmts in lieu of taxes on tho:re lands and othl!! deductions pt!r­.
mitred bv law. mav btl used by the state wrthout restr:cnon.
Article I I of the
Nevada Constitution
provides tor deposit
of certain money
into Nevada's perma­nent
schoo I fund.
Under "other deduc­tions
permitted by
law" the legislature
w iII address matters
such as a possibly
different tedera I
highway matching
formu I a with
public lands in
state control.
Public land access
is guaranteed.
5«. 3. TJut le~/aturt1 shall provid4 by law for thtl issuance of parmts
and till! ri!Suvarion of easements and other properry interests which
a:sstm! 1111biic acci!SS to .ft!derai and state lands upon thtl disposal of lands
vanted to this stattl by Con'§rt~ss. No parcel of land may btl sold or othtlr­wise
dispostld of except:
1. F'or thtl e:qxmJion of cities and tt1Wf!S o~. if nt~cnsary, to~ com-
'al purposes, if approvt!d individuafly by the !t~!]is/aturc by law.
2. For avicuiturai PU1'TJO:St!S if found suitable and cem(ied to Ju;"ll
water available for that purpostl by an orfico or o;Jicers charfl!!d by ,aw
with t/ro.stl dutii!S, if approved individually /Jy the leg!slature by law.
3. F'or sale or lease to an agl!!ncy or political subdivision of this state
or nonprofit corporation o~ association for public and rtiCrt!atioMl pur­poses.
upon tht! advice of thtl stattl agency charrrt!d with thtl manag!1ment
of the lands. if aflp~ovt!d individually as provided by law.
4. Po~ usc by an agmcy or insrf'Ummtality of tht1 Federal Govern­ml!!
rlt. upon thl!! advice of the state agt.'ncy charft!d by law with that duty,
if aPproved indlviduailv /Jy thtl legislatun by law .
.5. F' or mining claims which art! localtld or pat_mt~ prtrnuZflt to fed­eral
or srattllaw, and for leastl;r/or tht1 urraction or mrnerats •. oll o~ gas or
thtl UStl of gt10thcrmai IIM1TJ (lr.tn/MZIIt to 3fate law. Provision must be
made to~ the rt1st1rvation or sale of rights to mitm'tiLr .browll to uisl in till!
lands when dispo:r11d of by the state in any f7lfJ1UID' other than by location
or patent.
6. By leasi!S for the 1"a::inlf of liYntoclc, upon tht1 advice of the srare
agency charged with tht! fllllll41fl!!mtlnt ot the lands, if apprcved indivrd­uaily
as providt~d by law.
7. By otht!r ~Nscs and ea.fCmmts and rights of way for a period nor
to exceed 99 Yetli'S if the rmtat is at fair rntZr/cet valw and is rt!VaiUtld aJ
intervals not to exceed .5 ytiQI'S, upon thtl advice of thtl sUJte agency
charged with tht! managt~ment of thtl !ands, if approved individuaily by
tht1 /egi:rlaturtl /Jy law.
8. By uchanlfi!!S, for thtl purpostl of consolidation and better man­a!
ft!mtlnt and ustl ot the land. for parcels of equivalent size or vaiUtl, upon
:Itt! advicl!! of che srattl alfency char!ft!d with thtl manalfl!!ment o; thtl lands,
if approvt!d individually by the le![islaturt /Jy law. . .
9. For sales of land in parcels not lar
Summary
Amends state law relating to
consent to federal land acquisi­tions.
Requires hearings and
approval by Governor or Legis­lature.
Requires state to continue In­lieu
of tax payments to local
governments If certain public
lands are transferred from
federal to state control.
Provides funding tor a multi­state
study of the effect and
Impact of transferring public
lands from federal to state
contr-ol.
Similar- to the 1979 Nevada law,
and also lays claim to u.s.
Forest Service lands.
Endorses and supports the efforts
of western states to gain equality
with other states In public land
management, control and ownership.
Directs Attorney General to
explore the feasibility of
supporting Nevada's public lands
I ega! challenge, and to study
whether Idaho should also seek
control of the public lands.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada law.
Removes automatic state consent
to federal land acquisitions
within Idaho. Similar to the
1979 law passed In State of
Oklahoma.
Proposes to amend Idaho Consti­tution
to remove disclaimer
clause relating to the state's
agreement to never seek addi­tional
unappropriated public
I ands.
Introduced version of this bill
was similar to the 1979 Nevada
law. Amended in Senate to
provide that If Congress decides
to release BLM and C.M. Russell
Wildlife Range lands, the State
of Montana lays claim to such
public lands.
6.
Current Status or
Vote by Legislature Effective Date
In Assembly Energy
and Natural Resources
Committee.
Passed Assembly
Energy and Natural
Resources Committee
on Apr I I 29 • I s
presently In Assembly
Ways and Means
Committee.
House 50-10
Senate 35-0
Passed Senate on March
30, 1981 • Passed House
of Representatives on
May 22, 1981. Amendments
approved by Senate-House
conference committee on
May 26, 198 I •
Senate 19-16
House 55-15
Passed House of Repr-e­sentatives
(44-23).
Not voted on In Senate
before end of 1981
legislative session.
Defeated In Senate.
( 14-19)
Passed House of Repre­sentatives
(56-13).
Not voted on In Senate
before end of 1981
legislative session.
Passed Senate but was
killed in committee In
House of Representatives.
Adopted
4/8/80
Awaiting
approval
by the
Governor.
Adopted
4/15/80
Adopted
3/14/80
Montana
(Cont.)
Nevada
Nevada
New Mexico
Bi II, Resolution
or State Law
HJR 1:3 ( 1981)
Summary
Urges Congress to transfer unap­propriated
public lands to
Montana and supports efforts of
other western states on Sage­brush
Rebel! ion.
AB 413 (1979) In 1979 Nevada enacted a law,
(Nevada Revised dubbed the "Sagebrush Rebellion,"
Statutes 321.596- which asserts state control and
321.599) ownership over the unappropriated
public domain lands now under the
management of the Federal Bureau
of Land Management.
AB 13 (1981>
SJR 17 (1981)
(See rei ated
article else­where
In this
news I etter)
SB I 76 (198 I)
S8 238 (198 I)
SJR 18 (1981)
SB 215 (1981)
HB 79 ( 1980)
(New Mexico
Statutes
19-15-1 to
19-15-10)
Requires state to reserve from
sales of state land routes
necessary to continue public
access to public lands.
A proposed constitutional
amendment to severely restrict
any future disposals of public
lands by Nevada.
Removes from state law auto­matic
state consent to federal
land acquisitions and requires
Federal Government to obtain
state consent tor certain uses
of federal lands.
A bill to guarantee a continua­ation
of In-lieu of tax payments
to local governments If Nevada
gains actual control of the
unappropriated public lands.
Urges Congress to enact legis­lation
transferring unappro­priated
public lands to the
states.
Authorizes Attorney General
to bring action If Federal
Government's use of public
lands Impairs state sovereignty.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada law.
Appropriation in 1981 to Attorney
General to develop the legal case
for Sagebrush Rebel! ion.
Current Status or
Vote by Legislature
K I I I ed In House
of Representatives.
Assemb I y 38- I
Senate 17-3
Assemb I y 40-Q
Senate 20-0
Senate 20-Q
Assembly 40-0
Senate 16-3
Assemb I y 40-Q
Senate 20-o
Assembly 38-0
Senate 17-3
Assemb I y 40-Q
Senate 19-0
Assembly 40-0
House 48-18
Senate 25-13
North Dakota HCR 3036 (1981) Supports the Sagebrush Rebel! ion
movement to transfer 8LM lands,
Passed House of
Representatives
and lands of other federal agencies and Senate.
such as the U.S. Fish and Wildt ife
Service and the u.s. Forest Service,
to the respective states.
7.
Effective Date
7/1/79
7/1/81
Must be aga I n
passed by 1983
legislature and
then approved by
voters in 1984.
7/1/81
7/1/81
Adopted
5/1/81
7/1/81
5/14/80
Adopted
3/25/81
Bill, Resolutlo"s
or State Law
Oregon HB 2982 (1981)
011 I I be i n
session unt I I
sometime In
July, 1981>
South
Dakota
Utah
Utah
S85(1980)
HB 2 (1981)
HB 4 ( 1981)
PB 3593 ( 1980)
SJR 132 (1980)
HB 6 (1980)
(Wyoming
Statutes
36- 12-10 I to
36-12-109)
Summary
Similar to the 1979 Nevada law,
and also lays claim to u.s.
Forest Service lands.
Creates an Oregon Commission
on state and federal lands
and directs that commission
to study the Implications of
transferring ownership of
federal publ lc lands to the
states.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada
law, with special provisions
rei ating to former railroad
0 & C lands.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada
law, claiming state juris­diction
over the unappropriated
public lands.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada law.
Amends Section 63-8-1 of the
Utah Code to withdraw state
consent to exclusive federal
jurisdiction over certain
federal lands In Utah.
Repeals Section 65-6-1 of the
Utah Code relating to auto­matic
state consent to federal
land acquisitions tor u.s.
Forests.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada law.
Constitutional amendment to
remove disclaimer clause
relating to unappropriated
public lands In Washington.
Similar to the 1979 Nevada law,
and also lays claim to u.s.
Forest Service lands.
8.
Current Status or
Vote by Legislature
Tab I ed by House
Agriculture and
Natural Resources
Committee on May 5,
1981.
Passed out of House
Agriculture and Natural
Resources Committee,
but re-reterred to House
Ways and Means Committee
on May 26, 1981 on a
41-18 vote.
In House Committee on
Agriculture and Natural
Resources.
E tfect I ve Date
Passed Senate on February
6, 1981. Passed House of
Representatives on
February 25, 1981. Vetoed
by Governor on March 9,
1981. Senate overrides
veto of Governor, but over­ride
falls In House, both
on March 12, 1981.
House 57-11
Senate 20-7
Passed by legislature
and approved by the
Governor on February
20, 1981.
Passed by legislature
and approved by the
Governor on February
20, 1981.
Senate 42-1
House 90-7
(3/10/80)
Senate 38-6
House 89-8
(3/10/80)
House 48-13
Senate 21-8
7/1/80
5/12/81
5/12/81
D I d not go Into
effect because
the proposed
constitutional
amendment was
defeated at the
November 1980
general election.
3/10/80
STATE OF COLORADO
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS
136 State Capitol
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (3031866-2471
To The Honorable
Colorado State Senate
Fifty-Third General Assembly
First Regular Session
State Capitol
Denver, Colorado 80203
Ladies and Gentlemen:
----· .. ~--··
.;\iM 5, 1981
I hereby return to you Senate Bi 11 170,, "Concerning
Public Lands and Providing for State Control and
Administration of Certain Lands Within the Boundaries of
Colorado and Making an Appropriation in Connection
Herewith", which I disappr'oved and vetoed on
June 5 at 8:35 a.m ••
The Sagebrush Rebellion has been successful in capturing
public attention and in instigating a necessary and
overdue dialogue as to the administration of federal
lands. But while the Sagebrush Rebellion is good public
relations, it is bad law.. Even the supporters of this
bill who testified at committee hearings conceded that
it would have questionable impact.
This bill is defective in many ways--legal, administra­tive
and strategic. The combined effect of these flaws
require a veto.
The legal foundation for this bill is shaky in the
extreme. Colorado's admission to the United States in
1876 was facilitated by enabling legislation adopted by
Congress. This Enabling Act gave the federal government
title to these lands in question. It is erroneous to
state that this bill would br~ng about the "return" of
these 1 ands to Co lorado. r:c: or ado rtever owned these
lands in the first place. P·~lonents of this bill arcue
that the Enabling Act viol0t~1 the equal footin9 d~c­trine
among the states. A review of the relevant case
law clearly shows that the equal footing doctri"e is
i naop 1 i cab 1 e to land agreements made in the Enab 1 i ng Act
as a condition of statehood.
-.. ~iO.,. '•~ .I~MD·~ ~ ,·.y:.,., ... "
1-.'J,_- 7 --~~·--,: .,~.· \•1 ·:, . ..:..:..:;/./ \··-.· . .,.~··
"-~)1!7
Richard D.lamm,
Governor
-2- 6/26/81
canvasback Book Reissued:
The Wildlife Management Institute announces the release of a new edition
of H. Albert Hochbaum's classic book, The Canvasback On A Prairie Marsh. Shortly
after it first was published in 1944, the book received The Wildlife Society's
publication award and the Brewster Medal of the American Ornithologists' Union.
Updated, it reclaims its importance as a model study of the canvasback.
Hochbaum has observed and recorded waterfowl at Delta Marsh in Manitoba,
Canada for more than 40 years. The author's reflections and insights--in word and
through his detailed illustrations and paintings--have earned him international
respect as a biologist, author and artist. The Canvasback On A Prairie Marsh is
more than a study of a waterfowl; it is an exceptional piece of literature.
\ $15.95 ~Public
The 232-page book is available in paperback for $5.95 or in cloth for
from the Univ. of Nebraska Press, 901 N. 17th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588.
Land Grab Hits Snags:
The sagebrush rebellion's move to take National Forest and Bureau of
Land Management lands in the West and turn them over to private economic interests
is experiencing some difficulty in Nevada and Colorado, according to the Wildlife
Management Institute.
The District Court for the District of Nevada recently struck down the
legal theories that underlie the sagebrush rebellion laws of that state. The Nat-ural
Resources Defense Council reports that those stricken theories also may be
the foundation for the recently introduced federal legislation to grab public lands.
Nevada has moved for reconsideration by the court, NRDC says, but most
likely that motion will be denied. NRDC emphasizes that the case involves only
the theories underlying the sagebrush laws: it did not strike down Nevada's law.
Nonetheless, NRDC said, the law is clear: "the sagebrush rebels haven't a legal
leg to stand on."
In Colorado, Governor Richard D. Lamm vetoed a sagebrush bill passed by
the Legislature: Governor Lamm's veto message follows:
• • • continued
(CJ)Lo~ ~,. ~1/Jf)~
7ic;. ( ;,_ s- e')
This bill, carried to its logical and intended conclu·
sion, would impose an administrative responsibility on
the State far beyond that which we have demonstrated the
ability to handle. I am far from a blind defender of the
administrative policies of federal agencies. But
neither do I believe that State government is eithe.r
suited or able to assume the administrative resp,Q-nSi·
bilities now exercised by the Bureau of Land Management,
the Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, th~Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
National Park Service, the Bureau of Mines, the
Geological Survey, and others. The financial burden of
properly administering and managing these lands would
far outstrip our present resources and would inevitably
impose a substantial new tax burden on Colorado
citizens. At this point in Colorado's development, it
should be our purpose, as elected leaders, to do a better
job of managing that which is in our domain, not to
expand our domain many times over.
Enactment of this legisl,ation might win a fleeting bat­tle
of frustration with federal land management prac­tices,
but it would lose a much more important war. As a
matter of strategy and politics, this legislation makes
1 ittle sense at a time when Rocky Mountain states are
battling Congressional.attempts to limit severance taxes
and other proposals, such as the Energy Mobilization
Board, which would override state and local laws and
regulations. I share the frustrations of many
Coloradans and Westerners regarding our relationships
with the federal government. However, we would .be
foolhardy and naive to think that the people Of ttie
United States, relatively few of whom reside in "Rocky
Mountain states, would support the transfer of title'to
these public lands. Though we can lament our relatively
sma 11 numbers 1 n the ha 11 s of Congress, we must be
realistic as to the nonexistent prospects of ever having
Congress pass such legislation. New York State alone
has more votes in the U. S. House of Representatives than
the combined totals of Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Nevada, New
Mexico and Arizona. The strategy of the Sagebrush
Rebellion is a dead end and could backfire. Instead of
this course, I urge you to join me in pressuring for
assurance that state and local laws and regulations
apply when the federal government is acting as a
sovereign within our border. Further, Colorado $hould
seek shared decision making on the use of federal lands.
This bill strikes me as an affront to the new administra­tion
in Washington, including some people with close
Colorado ties. President Reagan and his operatives are
on the record in support of the principles of the
Sagebrush Rebellion, and a "good neighbor" relationship
between federal agencies and state and local entities.
~~ S~t6 5QJA-r!)
~ (l#-S-81)
Though our politics differ, President Reagan and his
team deserve a chance for their new policies and ap­proaches
to work. The Reagan Administration is still
young. It is certainly premature to judge their poli­cies
of federal land management a failure.
In having one of our own, former Speaker of the Colorado
House Bob Burford, as head of the Bureau of Land Manage­ment,
we can be assured that the Colorado perspective
and frustration will be represented. In his Senate
confirmation hearings, Mr. Burford acknowledged the many
shortcomings of federal land management but made clear
his conviction that the federal government should retain
ownership of federal lands. Bob Burford and his
colleagues deserve a chance to implement their program.
During the past year, four other states have considered
and rejected legislation of similar intent. While the
reasons for defeat vary, it is my judgement that the
futility and shallowness of the Sagebrush movement has
become evident, that the will of the people does not
support such legislation, and that the public wants the
new Administration and its "good neighbor" policy to be
given a chance to provide a more practical remedy.
J have been an outspoken advocate for many years of
states• rights, of a mor~ realistic and effective con­cept
of federalism, and of the need for greater sensi­tivity
on the part of the federal agencies to western
realities and lifestyles. If I thought for a minute that
this bill would further these goals, I would sign it wit~
conviction. But it will have the unintended effect of
taking us backwards instead of moving us ahead.
Senate Bill 170 stands on dubious Constitutional ground,
it would lead to an administrative mess; and it is an
unsophisticated political strategy. For these reasons,
it is vetoed.
Respectfully submitted,
~-S ()~e- ~
Rich~d D. La11111
Governor
Page 1
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS OF HR. HAROLD C. HILES, 316 FIFTEENTH AVENUE SOCTH, NAMPA,
IDAHO 83651, REPE.ESENTING THE IDAHO CONSUMER AFFAIRS, INC. OF BOISE, IDAHO AND THE
GOLDEN EAGLE AUDUBON SOCIETY OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO., REGARDING H.R. 5439 AND
H.• R. 7837o Dated: January 15, 1981
To the Honorable James Santini
Congressman at Large: State of Nevada
Chairman: House Sub-Corlh'Tlittee on Mines and Mining
1626 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Congressman Santini:
This will gratefully acknowledge your letter of December 5, 1980 regarding
the testimony submitted your committee on behalf of Idaho Consumer Affairs, Inc.,
and the Golden Eagle Audubon Society. This writer wishes to thank you also for
for your kind offer to include additional pertinent information into the Official
Record of your November 22, 1980 hearing.
We do have more information relative to the proposed legislation to offer
and it is felt perhaps comments on your H.R. 7837 would be more appropriate for us
to cow~ent on as our activities and rr~in concern is within the confines of the
"Proposed Bi-rds of Prey EJcpansion Area11 , which the so-called Sagebrush Rebels are
endeavoring to defeato We therefore, are submitting considerable material for the
Public Record which \vill pertain, not only the the subject of Public Lands in gan-eral
but specifically to this Birds of Prey Areao However, let there be no mistake
regarding the fact we do strongly oppose the transfer of Federal Forest · lands to
the States as proposed in your HoRo 54)6.
102 .
With reference to Section}\ of H.R. 7837 (all further references will be made to
this particular bill) subsection (10) wherein speaking of 11degrading11 is concerned,
it is our view that this context referred to voting rights and political repre-sentation,
and there can be no question that the new states were accorded their two
Senators and a representative in proportion to the population of the new state.
There was no feasible way all new states could be created equal geographically
and with an oqual amount of of terrHory given the historical time the nei.; states
were created and the historical backgrounds of acquisition of th~ lands by tho Fed-eral
Government such as the Louisiana Purchase, the War With Mexico Treaty, the
·~ t- I ?·91) Page 2
Supplemental comments of Harold Co Miles, Nampa, Idaho, representing Idaho Consumer
Affairs, Inc. and the Golden Eagle Audubon Society regarding H.R. 5436 and H.R.78J7.
· new
Boundary Settlement Treaty for the~Northwest Territory with Great Britain and the
Gadsen Purchase from Mexico. After all, there were economic inequities assumed
when California and Texas were admitted to the Union not to mention the states East
of the Mississippi River created from the old Northwest Territory covered by the
Ordinance of 1787 which were Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin •. There-fore,
it seems the 11equal footing" doctrine is not very valid, in light of the ad-mission
of the previously mentioned states; not to mention the squabbles between
the Thirteen Original Colonies over their adoption of the Articles of Confederation
when the old Northwest Territory land held by some states such as New York and Vir-ginia
had to be ceded·. to the Federal Government before such states as Maryland
would adopt the Articles of Confederation. In addition,the Quebec Act passed by
Great Britain, serving somewhat as a precedent. for later states being formed in
North America, did rot cont;iin any provisions of 11equal footing11 by any of the terri-tory
which later became a state of the United Stateso
Referring to Section lOJ (c) of the bill, the agricultural interests in Idaho,
in the past, have rot and in our judgment will not in the future, act responsibly
via the highest state authority, the Idaho Legislature which is controlled by the
agri-business interests, timber companies and out-of-state mining interests, re-garding
the accepted principles of conservation and recreation; considering· : that
conservation and recreation are beneficial uses of Idaho water as determined by
the 11Idaho Tomorrow" program and the Idaho State Water Plan· .when based on continuing
I
opposition in the legislature and present pending cases before the Idaho Supreme
Court relative to the minimum stream flows of the Snake River and the desires of
many of the Sagebrush Rebels to further reduce the yearly mean flow of the Snake
River at the Murphy, Idaho gaguing station (no. lJ-172500) ~ee exhibit No. 4~rom
9404 cfs. (cubic feet par second) to even below the JJOO cfs set as the minimum
stream flow for the Snake River at the Murphy, Idaho gaguing station by a former
session of the Idaho Legislature when finally the Idaho State Water Plan was adopted
after many years of wrangling and opposition by the agri-business interests
'[, - 1'5' -~1) Page J
Supplementa'l comments of Harold C. Miles, Nampa, Idaho representing Idaho Consumer
Affairs, Inco and the Golden Eagle Audubon Society regarding H.R. 5436 and H.R.78J7.
represented in the Idaho State Legislatureo In this connection, let it be further
stated that even the Idaho Power Company does not favor further depletions of the
(also see exhibit No. 8 page J)
flows of the Snake River, au our exhibit 4 indicates would happeJI\if further land
in the Snake River Basin, in Idaho Power Co's territory were put under agricult~ral
development which would require pump sprinkler irrigation using electricity to man
the irrigation pumps, which would be necessary if more Public Lands in Southern
Idaho were put into irrigated farmlands requiring Snake River water. A consid-arable
portion of the Public Lands requiring Snake River water for irrigation lie
within the boundary area of the 11Pr9posed Birds of Prey Expansion Area 11 (see exhibit
No. 5) However, in passing, it should be noted there are approximately 84,)70 acres
of new high quality arable lands under the Salmon Falls tract and the Bruneau Plat-eau
Water Development Project which do not lie within the Birds of Prey Area and
82,840 of supplemental arable lands (needing additional water) also within these
two projects, and the lift to pump water from the Snake River is not nearly so great
as the lands within the Birds of Prey Areao In addition, the Salmon Falls Tract
has been recorr~ended already for development by the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Idaho Legislature, as well as by former and some present members of Idaho's COng-ressional
delegation, as well as the Idaho Department of Water Resources. Also, it
should be mentioned the Salmon Falls Tractwill not require nearly as much water
pwmped from the Snake River for irrigation, since it receives most of its water from
the South Hills which lie South of the Snake River. Therefore it can be readily seen
that there is a total of 167,210 acres, approximately, which can produce additional
crops within the State of Idaho, as well as the State of Idaho's lands and the private
lands within the Birds of Prey Area Boundary for the production of additional agri­cultural
crops, not to mention the permissible gr~zing of 65,000 AUM's which will be
permitted to continue, which negates any legitimate reason for not establishing the
"Proposed Birds of Prey Expansion Area 11 • (see Exhibit No. 6 of 1,3 pages--page 1)
It should be noted that Idaho's grazing feesfrom state lands range from $).00
for 1981
to $6.00 par AUM whereas the BLM fees are $2.)1 per AUM for 1981 which is a great
1\
( \- 'S-81) Page 4
'-'
Supplemental comments of Harold Co Miles, Nampa, Idaho representing Idaho Consumer
Affairs, Inco and the Golden Eagle Audubon Society regarding H.R. 5436 and H.R. 7837.
benefit to the 6) livestock operators using approximately 65,000 AUM's per year in
the Birds of Prey Boundary areao In addition, for the FY year 1981 $6,707,865 will
be paid to Idaho's counties in-lieu-of-taxes, and altho the payment is less than the
payment of FY 1980, the payment represents only a reduction of BLM in-lieu-payments
counties
of 1.5%. Furthermore, it is very doubtful if the [\ of Idaho could financially
afford to lose the BLM revenue of $6,707,865 received in FY 1980 and·the State of
Idaho the $1,588,845 it received from the BLM, as its semi-annual FY 1980 payment,
or the $10, )14,553 Idaho received as its fourth quarter FY 1980 payment from the
U.S. Forest Service, especially in view of the fact the BLM has budgeted $15,797,500
for its FY 1981 expenditures for Idahoo (see exhibit' No. 7 of 1? pages). Inasmuch
as the raptors and grazing·are absolutely compatable and to a great degree the ex-ploration
for gas & oil and some mining activities are al so compatible with the
raptor feeding activities, the best use of this area is obviously the multiple use
of the area by the above mentioned activities, not the ploughing up of the area for
row crop agricultural production, which will destroy the food base for-some of the
raptors and deplete the flow of the Snake River reducing the hydroelectric gener-ating
capacity of some of the Idaho Power Co's power plantso
It is our opinion some protestors and members of the Sagebrush Rebellion still
retain the mentality of the cattle and timber barons of past who do rot want any
reasonable management mandated by the Federal Land Policy }~nagement Act of the
Congres~and as interpreted by the courts. Needless to say, this legislation was
enacted by the Congress to cure some of the very ills the degraders, both past and
present, subjected the public lands too These Sagebrush Rebels and their cohorts
still want freedom of action to utilize the public lands in any manner they choose,
without interferrence from any one, a private individual, conservation organization,
or federal official mandated by Congress to enforce the lawo The return to feudalism,
as far as the rights of the vast majority of the United States Citizens, who actually
Olm the public lands, and the residents of the great majority of Idflhoans who en joy
the publj.c lands, is not the proper and best multiple use of the BLM and Forrest
0- IS --8 l) Page 5
Supplemental comments of Harold C. Miles, Nampa, Idaho representing Idaho Consumer
Affairs, Inc. and the Golden Eagle Audubon Society regardinc; H.R. 54)6 and H.R. 78)7
Service lands as is stated is one of the purposes ~~ndated in Section lOJ (c) of H.R.
78)7.
Referring to Section 401 (a) in which navigable rivers is referred to, we can
envision a real donneybrook and years of litigation in the courts should the State
of Idaho authorize any action near or under the streambeds of navigable rivers in
Idaho (one that will float a log 10 inches in diameter) which would pollute the
drinking water of cities using the river water for cullinary use, or which would
degrade the water quality for fish, wildlife or other prior beneficial uses of the
rivers' watero This fact is especially pertinent when considered in light of the
present economic plight of the State of Idaho when the state agency budgets are
being reduced so sufficient inspectors would not be available to inspect, supervise,
or investigate complaintso A good example of the reduced inspection activity which
is relavent is that the Idaho Department of Water Resources does not have sufficient
inspectors to inspect the many storage water dams it is required to or should under
the Federal Dam and Safety Aot.
In conclusion, let it be stated that during the hearings of the BLM relative to
the Birds of Prey Environmental Impact Statement, there were more people testifying
in favor of enlarging the Birds of Prey Area than opposed, and-more letters received
in support of the expansion (822) than were opposed to the expansion (46). (see
BLM records of meetings and Exhibit No. 5). In addition, the information released
by the BLM and many other writers indicate to us that the BLM has been, in the main,
very fair and impartial in administering the public land.-la\-Ts, as well as many, many
people and organizations, both inside and outside Idaho favor retaining the present
public lands in Federal ownership, as well as the enactment of the "Proposed Birds
of Prey Expansion Area". (see Exhibit·~ No.•sfthrough ;z.,h ). Therefore, it is
mooved and requested at this point this supplemental comment and testimony with the
additional exhibit·~ No's. · 4 throug~), ~s well as your letter of December 5, 1980,
be added to the permanent public record of your committee's hearingo
Respectfully sub~~l~6'd, // rYJA "6J
Harold C. HiloSof~nJJ!"P• /F ~, .l
ICL LEGISLATIVE'ALERT
No.4
wherl, lwG days befor~ it became law,
Earl Hardy, who owns land. within the
Box Canyon
needs your help
Box Canyon near Hagerman is one canyon, filed for all· unappropriated
of the largest remaining Thousand water in Box Canyon. Hardy's permit
Springs left largely intact, the 11th application effectively blocked state
largest spring in the United States. Box protection. ·
Canyon spring feeds a stream which The law still recognizes the signif­provides
habitat for the rare Shoshone lcance of Box Canyon to the citizens of
sculpin, two rare snail species, and Idaho for · scenic and recreational
other wildlife. Box Canyon has been values. This law has served as the basiS
nominated as a National Natural Land- for effecttve opposition by the Idaho
mark and was identified as the third Ftsh and Game and Parks· ana· Rec·
ranked site in the U.S. FISh and Wildlife reation departments to proposals to
Service's "Important FISh and Wildlife destroy Box Canl}on's resources. Now
Habitats of Idaho" inventory. In HB 640 would remove this reeognltion
addition, Box Canyon supports a high and approve Hardy's bid to develop a
quality (Class I) rainbow trout fishery. fish farm, using Box Canyon waters.
Box Canyon also has significant The major impacts of HB 640:
recreational values. The spring wells up 1. It would restrict public use of the
from the base of a sheer basalt cliff, area by changing the language in the
forming a large blue pool. Midway law from 1'lands devoted to recreational
along Box Canyon, the creek drops in a use" to "lands devoted to natural
12-foot waterfall on its way to the Snake scientific study and limited recreational
River. The lower portion of the canyon use."
IS p1,1blic (BLM) land. 2, It would set an unheard of
REcognizing its outstanding natural precedent: It wtiuld transfer ownership
values, the Idaho Legislature pa5sed a of Box Canyon Creek streambed to Earl
bill in 1971 designating Box Canyon as Hardy. Nevet·before has Idaho granted
a recreational water, and directed the private ownership of a river or stream
Idaho Department of Parks and Rec- bed. This has profound implications for
reation to appropriate all unapprop- all Idaho waters. The implications for
riated water iapproximately 600 cubic fisheries, recreation, water quality, ag­feet
per second), in the canyon in the riculture and other resources are
.publicWeresLB.JJitbe bill WiiS tllwar..t t:!e"-"~g~-!-no~~u!:. !h!_s_~ _quit~. !>ossibly a
Inverted rates
In the last Alert, we mentioned that
the Idaho Public Utilities Review
Committee had recommended that
inverted rates be banned for residential
customers. That recommendation has
now been put into bill form by Rep.
Gary Montgomery, R-Boi$e, and has .
been introduced into the House State
Affairs Committee. The bill IS HB 655
and will likely be ~onsidered by the
committee before you get thiS Alert.
FEBRUARY I 9, I 98 2
violation of the State Constitution, as
well.
3.The bill excludes the lower half of
Box Canyon from state recognition as a
recreational area, which will make it
more difficult to protect public use and
public values in Box Canyon.
4. HB 640 circumvents the standard
water rights permit process by extending
Hardy's water right to 1988. (It is due to
e&pire next year, since he has not yet
put it to beneficial use) . No other Idaho
water rigJ,t bolder has · been accorded
such a privilege.
5 . .The bill changes the use for which
Hardy's water right was granted. Hardy
currently has a permit for using Box
Can~(;>n water for· aquaculture only.
The · bill ~xtends his right to cover
hydropower development as well.
If thiS legislation passes, it will put
pressure ori the BLM to grant what
Hardy is ultimately after: a right-of-way
across public land that would . enable
Hardy to build a fiSh hatchety in
adjacent Blind Canyon. With a right of
way, Hardy could connect Box Springs
,water with Blind Canyon, which is a
more viable site for a fiSh farm. To date,
BLM has not granted an easement
because of Intense public opposition.
· Action: Call the House Resources
and Conservation Committee,
334-2060. Request a public hearing on
HB 640 and express opposition to the
bill.
If you are a member of a t:>hone net,
you will be alerted when HB 655 gets to
the floor of the House. If you aren't,
please write or call your representatives
now and urge them to oppose the bill.
State land
amendment case of conflict, those values would legislators in both houses for the
A constitutional amendment has automaticaUy lose. purchase of any land In Idaho by federal
been introduced that would allow the Present language in the constitution agencies, outside an incorporated city.
State Land Board to give tenure to suggests that thiS would be the case This kind of legislation is aimed •
livestock . operators holding grazing now--that lands which might be trans blocking acquisitions of land for wildllle
leases on state land. Presently leases ferred to the state cannot be managed refuges, for other wildlife habitat
expire after 10 years and are then for multiple use. There IS sorile question purposes, or for purchase of priVate·
subject to competitive bidding. · about it. In defending the "sagebrush inholdings iri wilderness or recreation
SJR 18 would take out the constitut- rebellion," Atty . Gen. David Leroy has areas. (This bill excludes acquisitions in
ional requirement that state endowment said that transferred lands could be the Sawtooth Recreation Area, but is
lands be managed for the ".mcudmwn ,mat)aged for. mu~le tiSe, despita.what --d. bad leglsletion).
possible amount.'' It would substitute for the constitution now says. · · Aside from · diSco!.lraging acqUiSition
that language ·calling for "maximum If multiple use for transferred lands is of land for important public purposes,
long-term financial return." Presumably in fact possible (uider the constitution as the bilL also interferes with private
thiS would let the Land Board give it stands now, SJ~l ·18 would remove property rights. It would allow the
tenure to grazing leaseholders, as is now any doubt. It would rule . aut multiple klgislature to deny a private land owner
done on federally-managed lands. . use· management. The public lands 1M OJ>tion of selling his land,· or an
There is another aspect to this would be manage_d for commercial uses easement to a federal agency.
amendment. It also adds language that return·dollar$ to·the· state. Wildlife Since majority apptoval in both
referring to lands "acquired by" the state or recreation values would always be houses IS required, the majority on any
from the federal government. This sacrificed, if t~ey.got in the way. committee considering such legislation
provision would also apply to those Th~dment was in the House could deny legislative consent by hold­lands.
This means that if the "sagebrush_ . .ResOurces and Conservation Comm- tng the measure in committee,· or
rebels". S!Jcceed .il! g~!!!!!a_~s ittee headed by Rep. Varp Chatbum. refusing to print it. What thiS really
man9~ by Jb~Lt.f or Forest Service Please . write chairman Chatbum means IS that a few legislators on key
transferred to the state, they could not ·oppostng SJR 18. Also write or call committees could block any acqu~-
be rnanaged for multiple use. In, ca(se of . your leplators. itlorts .
. conflict with "long term financ;ial Also. in House Resources and Con- 'When you write Chairman Chatbum
return," no consideration could be · · and your legislators opposing SJR 18,
given to wildlife, or to recreation. In seryation WN · HB 680, which would also ask them to. vote against HB 680.
.. require approval of a majority of
- ,£-'Otllrnents needed
' on.· mining bills
Introduced in House Resources is HB cost change will result in reduced
711, which would weaken state regul- inspections, and there are already too
ation of dredge mining. There are also few.
two Senate bills which would provide SB 1378, drafted by the Attorney
long overdue strengthening of the State General for the Lanci -Department,
Land Department's authority, one for amends Idaho's 9redge Mining Act.
the regulation of dredge mining, and First, It redefines "dredge mining" to
the other for surface mining. Letters are cover new dredging methods which are
needed opposing HB 711, and support- only ambiguously covered, if at all,
ing the Senate bills. under ,the existing definition.
HB 711 in House Resources, is the Second, It clarifies the process for
work 'of small miners. It reduces the appeal of Land Board decisions under
present bond requirement for dredge the Act. It speeds up the court process
mining from .$15,000 for the first 10 . for considering such appeals, and It
acres or portion thereof, to $1,500 per makes explicit that the Land Board can
acre for the first 10 acres, and $1,000 enforce Its·· decision even if it Is
for each additional acre. Due to bad appealed,. and unless the·court issues a
drafting, it also apparently removes any stay of enforcement. SB 1378 Is a
bond requirement at all for dredge modest but good bill.
operations of less than an acre. SB 1380, also drafted by the
The bill also strikes existing langui:!ge Attorney General, amends the Surface
which allows the Lanc;l Department to Mining Act. It makes a number of sound
charge dredge . operators for the per procedural ·. changes· in the sections
diem costs of mine inspections. Usually covering enforcement and appeals. It
two inspections are done each year, at a strengthens the bonding requirements,
cost to the Operator of $100 to $200. giving the Land Board ~l,.lthority to sue
This Is a damaging bill. There Is no an operator for excess costs If. the
way a $1,500 bond will cover operator's bond does not cover reclam­streambed
damage a dredge miner can ation costs incurred by the state If an
cause on a one-acre claim; indeed, the operator jumps bond. It redefines
present bond of $15,000 is probably too "surface mining operatiops" to include
low for streambed operations. Requir- exploration roads in the minimum
ing no bond for quarter or half-acre acreage requirement necessary far def­operations
is ridiculous,- The inspection inition as. a s~ace mining . operation
Another attack
__ ()n land pla~ning ______ . _____ _
HB 494. Governor's amendments to
the Local Plannlrw Act. ICL supports.
See the last alert for an explanation.
The legislation is still In the House Local
Government Committee. It has not yet
come before the committee for .dis­cussion.
Two anti land-use planning bills pave
been introduced by Rep. Gene Win­chester,
R-Kuna, HB 641 and HB 741.
They are repeats of bills he has
Introduced in previous years.
HB 641 would amend the Local
Planning Act to allow city or countv
Quarters update
• -~i~;-: Almost 1, 700 quarters have
~red into the Joint Finance-Approp­,
riations Committee. (JFAC) since we
started our Quarters for • Clean Air
campaign. ltis, without question, .the
_ @"Qest ma!Ung__the l.egislafule .Fiscal
Office has ever handled; and the
quarters keep rolling in. · "'
voters to set an election on the question
of whether or not to have planning and
zoning. The issue would not be what
kind of local land use regulation, or
specific issues, but a· choice between
h&.ilng local regulation, or having none.
HB 741 would remove the prqvision
that now requires all counties and cities
to plan and zone. This \vould make it
optional for county commissioners or
city councils. So we could have some
counties in Idaho wide open to unregul­ated
development, and others with
planning and zoning. A deeision by
citizen's groups, individuals, and, of
course, the Idaho Conservation
League. With few exceptions, all have
recommended reinstatement of the
13ure(lu. . ..
. OU.. job now 1s to see that'tht Bureau
·g--·nof only refun~ed, out that iCls
refunded . adequately and with few
restrictions. Y~u . can help! If you
haven't sent your quarter ln, do it rtow.
· (JFAC, ldah9 Statehou$8, BoiSe 10
(the law now has a 5-acre minimum,
exclusivE!. of expkmslion-roads).
Most importantly, the bill adds "mine
or mill waste" to coverage under the
Act. Abandoned tailings or waste piles
which are opened up for reworking are
not now covered by any Idaho mining
law. This amendment br1ngs such
operations under the Act. It exempts
mine or mill waste associated with active
underground or surface mines from
coverage (this is to prettent opposftfon
by the Idaho Mining Association).
SB 1378 and SB 1380 were int­roduced
in the t Senate Resources
Committee. On Feb. 19, both were
withdrawn at the Attorney General's
request, apparently to work out object­ions
the Mining Association · still had.
The current plan Is to· return them. to
committee in revised form within a
week.
Action: If yol,.lr legislator Is -on the
House Resources Committee, call
him/her and urge opposition to HB 711
(It should be considered very soon). If
your legislator Is on the Senate
Resources Committee, write and urge
support for SB 1378 and SB 1380. Add
that SB 1380 should be strengthened to
cover surface effects of underground
mining (which are not now regulated
under any mining law) and to cover
mine and mill wastes at both active and
abandoned mines.
county A not to have land use
regulation would ··put pr•ure ,on
neighboring counties to go the same
way. Existing policy lets local officials
l:lecide how to aJ)ply planning and
zoning, but makes local land use
regulatton state policy. Both of these
bm$ W<>uld repeal that policy. Both are
In the House Resources and Con­servation
Committee.
Write your legislators opposing HB
641 and HB 741, and supporting HB
494.
83720). We must keep the pressure on .
Write your legislators (Statetiouse,
Boise 83720) or call (334-2000) and
urge them to support reinstatement.
Finally, write lette~ to the editor of your
lOcal; ~aper- i.trgrng oth~~~rt----~
reinstatement. ·
If we get the Bureau back, it Will be
due largely to your efforts. Thank you
for your participation.
NON·PROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Boise ldalto 83702
Permit No. 211
As a result qf the public concern ~
reinstatement of Idahcis Air QuaJitv
Bureau, House Speake~: Ralph
Olmstead created a special committee
to study its re"establishment JFAC has
announced that they will defer ·~
decision on refunding of the program
until the special committee has. made its
report. Members of the special comm.­lttee
are: Rep. Robert Geddes,
R·Preston, chafrman; Rep. Michael
Sharp, R-Nampa; Rep. William Lytle,
R-Pinehurst; Rep. George Johnson,
D-Lewiston; and Rep. Louis Horvath,
D-Pinehurst.
TED TRUEBLOOD
The special committee has , been
hearing . testimony. from industry,
719 8TH AUE SOUTH
NAMPA.. ID